Loading...
Vendor: In Country X, there are several prominent C/N/S fabric manufacturers. Each of these fabric manufacturers develops fabrics in unique combinations in order to product differentiate. The combinations vary in percentages but usually include varying ratios of cotton, nylon, and spandex (C/N/S). We can therefore be able to determine, on the basis of compositional analysis, where the next piece of clothing that we buy from our supplier originally came from. Once we figure that out, we can cut out the supplier and source directly from the original manufacturer.
Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the antique expert's argument and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would provide significant logical support for the required assumption.
Other pieces of clothing have already been purchased from the supplier, all of which were made of the fabrics cotton, nylon, and/or spandex (C/N/S).
Some of the pieces of clothing purchased from the supplier were not made of cotton, nylon, or spandex.
Fabric manufacturers often tried to enter into each other's markets and experimented in producing batches of fabric in ratios of cotton, nylon, and spandex (C/N/S) that directly competed with the other manufacturers in Country X.
There was considerable overlap in product selection offered by the various fabric manufacturers.
The next piece of clothing to be purchased from the supplier will likely be made of only cotton, nylon, and/or spandex (C/N/S).
Most fabric in Country X was made at one of the several manufacturers.
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "In Country X, there are several prominent C/N/S fabric manufacturers" |
|
| "Each of these fabric manufacturers develops fabrics in unique combinations" |
|
| "We can therefore be able to determine...where the next piece of clothing...originally came from" |
|
| "Once we figure that out, we can cut out the supplier and source directly" |
|
Main Conclusion: We can cut out the supplier and source directly from the manufacturer
Supporting Evidence:
Key Assumptions Being Made:
Overall Logical Flow: Unique fabric ratios → Compositional analysis → Manufacturer identification → Direct sourcing
Part 1 (Assumption Required): We need to identify something that MUST be true for the vendor's argument to work. Without this assumption, the argument falls apart.
Part 2 (Possible Fact): We need to find a fact that would strengthen or support the assumption we identified in Part 1.
How they relate: Part 2 should provide evidence that makes Part 1's assumption more reasonable or likely to be true.
For the assumption, we need something that bridges a gap in the argument. The vendor assumes:
For Part 1 (Assumption): The vendor must be assuming that the next piece of clothing will actually contain C/N/S fabrics. If it's made of wool or polyester instead, their whole plan fails.
For Part 2 (Supporting Fact): Evidence showing that the supplier's clothing typically contains C/N/S fabrics would support this assumption. Past patterns suggest future likelihood.
Choice 1: "Other pieces of clothing have already been purchased from the supplier, all of which were made of the fabrics cotton, nylon, and/or spandex (C/N/S)."
Choice 2: "Some of the pieces of clothing purchased from the supplier were not made of cotton, nylon, or spandex."
Choice 3: "Fabric manufacturers often tried to enter into each other's markets and experimented in producing batches of fabric in ratios of cotton, nylon, and spandex (C/N/S) that directly competed with the other manufacturers in Country X."
Choice 4: "There was considerable overlap in product selection offered by the various fabric manufacturers."
Choice 5: "The next piece of clothing to be purchased from the supplier will likely be made of only cotton, nylon, and/or spandex (C/N/S)."
Choice 6: "Most fabric in Country X was made at one of the several manufacturers."
For Assumption Required: Choice 5 - "The next piece of clothing to be purchased from the supplier will likely be made of only cotton, nylon, and/or spandex (C/N/S)."
This is essential because without it, the vendor's compositional analysis plan is useless. You can't match C/N/S ratios if the fabric isn't C/N/S!
For Possible Fact: Choice 1 - "Other pieces of clothing have already been purchased from the supplier, all of which were made of the fabrics cotton, nylon, and/or spandex (C/N/S)."
This historical pattern strongly supports the assumption that the next piece will also be C/N/S, making the vendor's plan reasonable.
Choice 3 seems relevant because it mentions manufacturers and C/N/S ratios, but it actually destroys the argument by eliminating the "unique combinations" that make identification possible.
Choice 6 might seem supportive since it suggests these manufacturers are important, but it doesn't directly support the critical assumption about the next clothing piece being C/N/S fabric.
The key insight is recognizing that the vendor's entire plan hinges on being able to analyze C/N/S ratios - which only works if the clothing actually contains C/N/S!