Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S2 · Q26 The advertising campaign for Roadwise

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 advertising campaign for Roadwise auto insurance is notable for the variety of its commercials, which range from straightforward and informative to funny and offbeat.

Conclusion

The approach Roadwise insurance takes with its ads (ranging from dry and informative to funny and offbeat) is smart.

Evidence

Even though companies typically strive for uniformity in order to establish brand identity, auto insurance purchasers are a demographically diverse group.

Evaluate

Okay, so this is clearly Geico they're talking about, right?

Strengthen/Weaken questions aren't super likely to test missing links but it seems here like we're missing a link between .

We can flesh out this assumption with its common sense implications: - different people will end up liking different ads (maybe the older demographics will appreciate the informative ads and the younger demographics will appreciate the funny/offbeat ads).

We might also see the correct answer try to establish a difference: - most other products (whose ads are more consistent), do not have as demographically diverse a range of potential customers.

And, of course, we should consider potential objections (what if this ruins Roadwise's chance at having a brand identity? what if some potential customers are attracted to Roadwise based on the ads whose style is a good fit for them but alienated from Roadwise based on the ads whose styles is not a good fit): - having a crazy variety of ads does not ruin brand identity / having a crazy variety of ads is their brand identity - people are not turned off by the style of Roadwise ads they like the least

Goal

Keep a flexible mindset and look for something that provides connective tissue between the premise and the conclusion or rules out a potential objection.

26.

Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?

Advertising campaigns designed to target
No Impact Too Weak: sometimes
Roadwise is not designing ads to target one demographic, so this answer is not relevant to them. Given that it says something good about what they're not doing, one might even say it slightly weakens. However, answers as weak as "some / sometimes / not all" are almost always wrong on Weaken, Strengthen, and Paradox.
5% picked this
Consistent efforts to establish a
Weakens, if Anything
This answer makes it seem like creating a firm, stable brand identity is crucial. Meanwhile, Roadwise is adopting a total scattershot approach that would be way less likely to give anyone a clear sense of their brand identity.
4% picked this
Fewer people are influenced by
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: other types of products This comparison doesn't do anything for the argument. If anything, it seems to weaken the importance or potential effectiveness of any ad for auto insurance.
3% picked this
Correct
Advertising campaigns that target one
Why this is right
This is saying that if Roadwise were to make an ad campaign targeting serious older people, then it would alienate younger people, who also must buy auto insurance. But if Roadwise were to make a wacky ad campaign for younger people, then it would alienate older people. So by creating a wide variety of ads and sort of scrambling any sense of who they're targeting, they make it less likely that any group will feel like, "Clearly, this company doesn't speak to me. I'll look elsewhere".
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% picked this
Efforts to influence a target
Unclear Impact: content falls short
This answer, like (D), also presents a negative associated with targeting a specific group (Roadwise is not targeting a specific group). But the negative is contingent on when "the content of the campaign falls short". This paragraph doesn't tell us anything about the content of the ads. We only hear about the style. Thus, this doesn't work as well as (D). They both would potentially strengthen by saying, "An opposite approach has a downside", but it's clearer with (D) that Roadwise is doing the opposite.
3% 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