Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q2 A study found that consumers

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

A study found that consumers reaching supermarket checkout lines within 40 minutes after the airing of an advertisement for a given product over the store's audio system were significantly more likely to purchase the product advertised than were consumers who checked out prior to the airing.

Conclusion (apparently = opinion)

These ads are effective.

Evidence

In a study, consumers reaching checkout lines within 40 mins after the airing of an ad for a given product were significantly more likely to purchase the product than were consumers who checked out prior to the airing.

Evaluate

We have a study; we have an Asymmetric Comparison (people who checked out in the 40 mins after the ad were more likely to buy the advertised product than were people who checked out prior to the ad). And the author's conclusion is definitely assuming a causal explanation for that curious comparison.

So we can use our Explain Curious Fact framework.

Curious Fact ... why were people who checked out after the ad more likely to buy the product advertised than were people who checked out before the ad?

Author's Explanation ... people who checked out after the ad heard the ad at the store and the ad convinced them to buy that product.

Goal

We can strengthen this by 1. ruling out an Alternate Explanation or by 2. increasing the Plausibility of the author's explanation

Strengthen questions most commonly increase plausibility, using some answer with a "No Cause, No Effect" form. In this case that would mean something like, . This would show that .

2.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. During the study, for most

    Relative vs. Absolute

    This answer is dealing with the raw number total of how many people went before vs. after the ad. But since we're talking likelihood, the raw numbers are irrelevant. We don't care if it's only 100 customers before the ad and 800 customers after the ad, or vice versa. The curious fact is expressed in likelihood, so we're judging it on a per capita basis, not a raw number basis. We're being told something like, "While only 15% of the shoppers prior to the ad bought advertised item X, around 60% of the shoppers after the ad bought X." That's a compelling difference, whether there is a higher raw number of shoppers before or after the ad.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    A large proportion of the

    Why this is right

    This helps the plausibility of the author's story that hearing the ad caused people to buy the advertised product. This says that a large proportion of the shoppers who bought X shortly after an ad for X aired said, "I didn't come into the store intending to buy X". But they ended up buying X. Why? Something must have triggered them while they were in the store into wanting to buy X. Are we sure it was the ad? What if a friendly customer recommended X or their kid texted them while they were shopping and asked for X? No, we're not sure. But this definitely helps the plausibility of the story that the in-storer ad was what influenced them into buying X.

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

    91% picked this

  3. Many of the consumers reported

    Weakens, if anything

    This provides an Alternate Explanation for why shoppers were buying the advertised products. It makes it sound like it was unrelated to the ad; they typically buy at least one of these every time they shop at the store (whether they hear an ad or not).

    3% picked this

  4. Many of the consumers who

    Weakens

    This hurts the plausibility of the author's story that "the ad made them buy product X". After all, if the customers are saying, "What ad? I don't remember hearing any ad?", then it's less convincing that the ad played any causal role. (Obviously this doesn't prove they didn't hear the ad -- maybe they heard it subconsciously, but this answer on its face is undermining our belief in the author's story)

    0% picked this

  5. Many of the consumers who

    Unclear Impact

    This doesn't do anything one way or the other to help us assess the causal reason why people who bought an advertised product did so. The fact that many people buy these products only occasionally doesn't tell us anything about whether they entered the store with a plan to buy that item or were coerced into doing so by an ad they heard at the store.

    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