PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 15
Marketing consultant: Last year I predicted that LRG's(51 more words not shown)
The marketing consultant's reasoning is(8 more words not shown)
- Ait takes for(18 more words not shown)
- Bit fails to(16 more words not shown)
- Cit takes for(11 more words not shown)
- Dit takes for(13 more words not shown)
- Eit confuses a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Sales are down. Why are sales down?
The consultant predicted trouble and wasn't hired. That doesn't establish that the advice LRG chose was bad. Perhaps the products themselves were unattractive and either consultant would have struggled to sell them.
Or imagine an economic crash. People have less money to spend, so sales fall even with a well-designed campaign. A war or some other disruption could also change what customers buy. The campaign might be responsible, but the sales figures alone haven't isolated it as the cause.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should give us that objection: the consultant jumps from poor sales after the campaign to a judgment that the campaign was ill conceived, without addressing other explanations for the result.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because sales might have been even worse without any campaign. But the consultant can allow that possibility and still call this campaign ill conceived. A poorly designed campaign could help a little compared with doing nothing while remaining a poor approach. The conclusion doesn't require believing the campaign provided no benefit whatsoever. A describes a stronger commitment than the consultant needs.
- BCorrect
An economic downturn could explain weak sales independently of the advertising. The consultant hasn't ruled out that kind of explanation before blaming the campaign. This identifies the causal gap: disappointing results don't by themselves establish that the advertising was badly conceived.
- C
We don't need new products to outsell established ones for their sales to be disappointing. The consultant could think the new products should sell better than they currently do without expecting them to beat every established product. C introduces a ranking that the reasoning doesn't require.
- D
The consultant doesn't explain why established products sell better. They could benefit from familiarity, loyal customers, or something else. Blaming this campaign for poor sales doesn't require attributing established products' higher sales to effective advertising.
- E
The argument doesn't give a requirement for increasing sales and then treat meeting that requirement as a guarantee. It uses disappointing sales as evidence against the campaign. The relevant mistake is failing to consider other causes of those sales, which B addresses.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.