QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
ARGUMENTS: Flynn argues that large lawsuit damage awards help consumers. The threat of damages makes corporations improve the safety of their products.
Garcia says that very large damages awards can bankrupt companies, costing jobs hurting the economy. This hurts consumers.
ANALYSIS: Flynn points out a benefit of large damages. Garcia doesn’t dispute Flynn’s point. Instead, they raise a new consideration: large damages have downsides too.
- CORRECT. This is exactly what Garcia does. Undesirable consequences = corporations going out of business, jobs lost.
- This didn’t happen.
Example of answer: Garcia: Actually, when faced with large damages, corporations become irrational and start poisoning their products, out of spite.
- This describes an analogy. Garcia didn’t make an analogy.
- This didn’t happen. And it’s hard to see how it could have. Flynn’s only policy is “large damages are good”. It’s hard to see how Flynn’s argument could directly support the idea that large damages are bad.
The only way to do that is to introduce other evidence, as Garcia actually did.
- This didn’t happen. And it couldn’t happen, because there is no situation in Flynn’s argument. Flynn only said one thing: “Damages create an incentive to make safer products”.
You can’t explain that another way. It would be like trying to explain “Rain makes things wet” or “San Francisco is in California” another way. It’s a statement of fact.
Want advanced LR strategies? → Try the LR Mastery Seminar
Graeme shows how 170+ scorers do LR in real time. Satisfaction guaranteed!