Passage Summary: A consumer advocate argues that companies should only exaggerate danger if it helps kids stay safe. Since companies do it just to avoid lawsuits, the advocate says they should stop.

Conclusion: Toy manufacturers should stop overstating the dangers associated with their products.

Reasoning: Exaggerating dangers is only acceptable if it actually reduces injuries, but manufacturers only do it to shield themselves from legal liability.

Analysis: This argument suffers from a 'motive vs. effect' flaw. The advocate assumes that because the manufacturers' *motivation* is selfish (avoiding lawsuits), the *result* cannot be beneficial (reducing injuries). However, a warning intended to prevent a lawsuit might still successfully prevent an injury. Look for an answer that points out that an action can still have a positive effect even if that effect wasn't the primary reason the action was taken.