Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S4 · Q24 The makers of Activite, a natural

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

The makers of Activite, a natural dietary supplement, claim that it promotes energy and mental alertness.

Conclusion

Activite must be effective.

Evidence

If Activite weren't effective at promoting energy and mental alertness, it wouldn't be in the company's interest to offer a free month's supply to new customers.

Evaluate

This feels like a rare argument where we will want to object to the evidence, rather than the reasoning move.

In terms of the reasoning move, the author is providing a conditional premise,

If it's in the company's interest Activite to offer a free month's supply → effective of Activite

And then he's concluding the outcome:

Thus, Activite is effective.

So he must be assuming the trigger:

The company benefits by offering a free month's supply of Activite.

We could weaken the argument by countering the assumption, saying something like,

But my suspicion is that they want us to attack the author's opinionated premise --- if we were to suppose that Activite were not effective, is there any way that giving a free month's supply could still be in the company's interest?

Sure. Maybe it's not effective but the placebo effect is strong enough that people who try out the free supply convince themselves that their energy and alertness has improved.

Maybe it's not effective, but it's delicious or addictive, so people who try out the free supply choose to keep ordering it just because they want to consume more of it.

Maybe it's not effective, but sending out the free supply creates some goodwill with customers who then buy other products that do make the company some money.

Goal

Look for an answer that helps us to solve this riddle,

24.

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

The nutrients in Activite can
No Impact
The fact that you can separately obtain all the nutrients in Activite doesn't tell us anything about whether that set of nutrients is or isn't effective at promoting energy and alertness.
2% picked this
There are less expensive dietary
Unclear Impact
The fact that there are cheaper alternatives that are just as effective as Activite doesn't tell us anything about whether Activite (and these alternatives) are or are not effective. Just because X is as effective as Y doesn't mean that either of them are effective. I can say that "showing off yoyo tricks is just as effective as saying the alphabet backwards, when it comes to convincing a supermodel to give you their digits."
2% picked this
A month is not a
Too Weak
This somewhat feels like an overall problem with the plan of sending out a free supply of your dietary supplement. If you're one of the typical dietary supplements, which you need to take for more than a month to see its full effectiveness, then whether or not Activite is effective, people will struggle to see it during the free month. But this is more an objection to Activite, saying, "Yo — does it make sense to do a free month's supply if the effects of your product don't really kick in that soon? Won't people get to the end of the month, not see the effects they were hoping for, and bail?" This isn't an objection to the author's argument. For that, we need a story where Activite isn't effective but it is in the company's interest to offer the free month.
31% picked this
Correct
The makers of Activite charge
Why this is right
This weakens the premise (which was an opinion, and thus fair game) by showing that it could be in a company's financial interest to offer a free month's supply of a worthless product. Even if people get to the end of the month and realize, "This product does nothing. I'm not paying for a 2nd month", the makers of Activite will still have profited because they charged recipient's a handling fee that's more than their production cost. i.e. We'll mail you a one-month supply for free (the cost to us is $3). You just need to pay Shipping & Handling costs of $9.99. That would still net the company $7 of profit.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
64% picked this
The mere fact that a
Trap
Too Weak Out of Scope: harmful side effects Saying "X does not ensure Y' is too weak to usually be correct on Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox since it only provides at least one data point. It means "there is at least one case in which X happened but Y didn't". But the argument also doesn't care whether Activite does or doesn't have harmful side effects. It only cares about whether or not Activite is effective at promoting energy and mental alertness.
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