PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 17

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  This predicts that the suppliers won't be bankrupted. It doesn't give the missing rule about why the manufacturer needs those suppliers to survive. The argument's conclusion concerns dependence: if the competitor failed and took suppliers down with it, why couldn't the manufacturer carry on with replacements? E directly answers that question.

• B

  This says the competitor's survival would be enough to ensure the manufacturer's survival. The conclusion says something different: the competitor's survival is required. Knowing that the manufacturer can survive when the competitor does doesn't rule out surviving when the competitor doesn't. That is the case we need to settle.

• C

  This starts with the manufacturer's failure and predicts the competitor's failure. We need the chain in the other direction: the competitor's failure must ultimately force the manufacturer out of business. C doesn't supply that connection.

• D

  This guarantees the manufacturer's survival when the suppliers avoid bankruptcy. But what happens if some suppliers do go bankrupt? D leaves that open. The manufacturer might survive with them or survive by switching to others. Saying healthy suppliers are enough doesn't make them indispensable.

• E
  Correct

  The manufacturer can stay in business only if its specialized suppliers aren't bankrupted. So those suppliers' survival is a requirement. The original premise says the competitor's failure would bankrupt some of them. With this added requirement, that loss means the manufacturer cannot stay in business either. The competitor therefore must remain in business for the manufacturer to remain in business.