Advertisement: In a carefully controlled

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that a generalization true of the entire group of volunteers was not true of each

   Why this is right

   Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we're trying to judge whether we could use the idea that follows to object to the argument. If there is a generalization true of the entire group, most people picked Sparkle over the competing cola that isn't true for at least one of the smaller groups, in the smaller group that measured Sparkle vs. Soda X, it was not true that most people picked Sparkle over the competing soda. then even though most people picked Sparkle, we still wouldn't say that Sparkle elicited a better response than all the colas tested, since Soda X elicited a better response than Sparkle. This speaks strongly to why it's so important to figure out a problem with the argument before looking at answers, since it can be near impossible to figure out what LSAC is going for with some of these answers if you don't already have the "right idea" in your brain.

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

   72%
2. B

   Not Assumed: most2% picked this

   It takes for granted that most of the volunteers would buy Sparkle Cola rather than one of the other colas tasted, at least in

   Since this starts with takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether the author needed to assume the idea that follows. No the author doesn't have to assume "at least 51% of the volunteers would buy Sparkle". The conclusion has nothing to do with buying and doesn't make any predictions about consumer behavior. If we negated this assumption and said, "No, author, at most 49% of volunteers would buy it when it's not much more expensive", that would hurt this argument. This is only about which soda elicited the most favorable response in a blind taste test, not at all about whether consumers who participated have now had their shopping habits change going forward.

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope Objection: not tested18% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that some cola not tested in the study would have elicited a more favorable

   Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we're trying to judge whether we could use the idea that follows to object to the argument. But we can't object by talking about colas not tested in the study. The conclusion is only about comparing Sparkle to the other colas that were tested.

   18%
4. D

   Out of Scope Objection6% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that many people may prefer Sparkle Cola to competing colas for reasons such as the packaging or price of

   Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we're trying to judge whether we could use the idea that follows to object to the argument. Does it hurt the author's argument if we say, "a lot of people prefer Sparkle because of its packing or price, not its taste"? No. First of all, in the study, it was a blind taste test and they didn't have to pay for their sodas, so both packaging and and price are impossible reasons for why the volunteers preferred Sparkle. Secondly, the author's conclusion is not specifically about preferring Sparkle's taste. It's just about Sparkle eliciting a more favorable response, so it only helps the author if we say that many people prefer Sparkle's packaging, or its price. The author doesn't specifically care why it elicits a more favorable response. As long as it elicits a more favorable response, the author's conclusion is still a true statement.

   6%
5. E

   Not a Complaint About Logic1% picked this

   It is based on a study that does not elicit consumers' responses to any beverages

   It is true that this argument is based on a study that only elicited responses to colas, but so what? That's not a logical problem with the argument. Both the evidence and the conclusion are only about comparing responses to colas, so the argument's scope stays consistent as it moves from premise to conclusion (which is a good thing).

   1%