Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S2 · Q13 Companies wishing to boost sales

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store displays to catch customers’ attention.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

Companies that want to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store displays to catch customers' attention.

Evidence

Today's busy shoppers have less time for coupon-clipping and pay little attention to direct-mail advertising. Instead they make 2/3 of their buying decisions on the spot at the store.

Evaluate

Because this conclusion is a Plan / Recommendation, we're less likely to see Linking assumptions. They would sound kind of corny like, the author is assuming that .

So we might want to figure out possible objections that the correct answer could Defend against. With Plans, we worry about whether the plan could feasibly work, whether people's motives / incentives line up with the plan, whether it could backfire in some way, whether it really addresses the root problem.

If we were trying to be skeptical about this plan of using in-store displays to attract attention and thus boost sales of merchandise, what could we say?

- what if the customers ignore the in-store displays? - what if the customers see them but are turned off by them (and either avoid the advertised product or avoid shopping at the store altogether)? - what if the customers see them, read them, and aren't offended by them, but it doesn't translate into any additional purchases than they would have otherwise made?

Goal

Hard to predict, but we can think, ?

13.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires?

  1. Companies are increasingly using in-store

    Out of Scope: increasingly using

    We don't care whether this plan represents a growing trend or whether the author is the first one to think of it. We're only concerned with whether or not it works at boosting sales. If we negated this and said, "companies are not increasingly using in-store displays", that doesn't weaken. It only weakens if we learn that in-store displays do not help boost sales of merchandise.

    1% picked this

  2. Coupons and direct-mail advertising were

    Out of Scope: at one time

    The author's argument has nothing to do with the past, so she hasn't committed to any ideas about whether coupons and direct-mail were once more effective than now. This answer has nothing to do with in-store displays, so it has nothing to do with the argument core we're supposed to be evaluating. We only care about answers that deal with this question: "Given that 2/3 of buying decisions are made at the store, would in-store displays succeed at catching customers' attention and thereby boosting sales of merchandise?"

    5% picked this

  3. In-store displays are more likely

    Irrelevant Comparison

    If we negated this and said "in-store displays are equally likely to influence on-the-spot buying decisions as they are to influence other buying decisions" that would sound like a big weakening idea for this plan.

    9% picked this

  4. Correct

    In-store displays that catch customers’

    Why this is right

    This sounds pretty obvious, which is why some students don't like it, but this plan is certainly assuming that in-store displays that succeed in catching customers' attention will thereby increase the potential sales of merchandise to that customer. If we negate this and say, "In-store displays that catch consumers' attention do not increase the likelihood that the customers will decide on the spot to buy the company's merchandise", that sounds like a big weakening idea to the plan. The author is saying these in-store displays are a way to boost sales of merchandise, but if customers who notice them are no more likely to buy the company's merchandise, then the author sounds wrong. On Necessary Assumption, if the negation of an answer badly weakens the argument, then that answer is correct.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    85% picked this

  5. Many of today’s shoppers are

    Weakens

    This is written as an objection to the plan. "Hey, author -- your plan sounds bad. After all, many shoppers are not going to even look at the in-store displays. They're too busy." Authors are never assuming something that weakens them. They're assuming the opposite of something that weakens them.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free