Q1 - Consumer Advocate: Businesses

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Strengthen EXCEPT

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Consumers should be skeptical of claims made in ads.
Evidence: Business want max profits. Ads help businesses get max profits. The motive of "max profits" doesn't force you to use accurate info in ads.

Any prephrase?
We can strengthen this by providing bridge ideas, by providing new considerations that support the conclusion, or by ruling out possible objections. One big possible objection is, "Even though businesses don't HAVE to present accurate info, they might still choose to do so out of being ethical or out of some other compulsion. Sure, the profit motive doesn't force them, but maybe consumer laws do?"

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
A) Strengthens by increasing likelihood that business are actually using inaccurate info.

B) Same as (A).

C) This has no effect, so this is the correct answer choice.

D) A possible objection could have been, "Even though BUSINESSES aren't forced to provide accurate info, maybe the ad-makers insist on the info being accurate?" This strengthens by going against that objection.

E) This strengthens by going against our anticipated objection, "what if businesses are LEGALLY motivated to present accurate info?" Oh, they're not.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer to Strengthen/Weaken EXCEPT usually does not go the opposite direction. Instead, it typically is just irrelevant.

Remember that you can strengthen arguments by adding connective tissue to the core, adding new considerations that go in the direction of the conclusion, or by ruling out possible objections.

#officialexplanation

[torahisland]

I got this wrong because I overlooked the EXCEPT. (In LSAT language: I presumed, without justification, to overlook the EXCEPT.) It just wasn't big enough!

Stimulus:
-Businesses typically motivated by profits
-Advertising assists in producing profits
Sub-conclusion: Maximizing profits does not compel businesses to advertise accurately
Conclusion: Consumers should be skeptical of advertisements.

Another stimulus taken from real-life. We like to think that the LSAT authors inhabit a fantasy world of sufficient conditions, necessary conditions, and letters that have some serious social problems. But, here the writers scoop a stimulus from the real-world practices of unscrupulous businesses.

OK: This is a strengthen EXCEPT question. The four incorrect answers with strengthen the conclusion ('should be skeptical'). Since there is a sub-conclusion, notice that the main conclusion can be indirectly strengthened if the sub-conclusion if fortified. The incorrect answer choice will not strengthen. It may weaken, but it does not have to. It just can't strengthen the conclusion.

Answer Choices:
(A)Businesses know inaccurate advertisements can lead to more profits. This helps. Maybe, unaware of this perk of lying, they wouldn't advertise falsely.
(B)Business often advertise inaccurately. This turns our theory into practice, at least sometimes. That's good.
(C) correct anser. Many consumers are cynical of advertisements. So what? That's a subjective attitude which may not indicate the truth of business practices. The argument rests on the real life practices and this is untouched in this answer choice.
(D) Creators of advertisements care more about creativity than accuracy. This doesn't help so much, but it shows that accuracy will likely be ignored when it gets in the way of creativity.
(E) No regulation. Businesses can do what they want. And they will!

[WaltGrace1983]

I really liked your explanation! Here is mine too:

"Motive of maximizing profits does not impel businesses present accurate info in advertisements
-->
Consumers should be skeptical of advertisements"

(Strengthen EXCEPT)
All the wrong answers are going to strengthen the argument while the right answers are going to either do nothing or weaken it. The problem with this argument is about motive. We are talking about a motive to make the most profit. However, why does this automatically mean that we should be skeptical of what the advertisements are saying? What if they don't need to lie because the product is that good. Who knows. Either way, this is what I am thinking about."

(A) This strengthens the argument. If businesses know that they can maximize their profits (and thus fulfill their motive) then why not use inaccurate information. Because this strengthens the argument, it is wrong.
(B) This strengthens the argument. We are presented with a case in which this is true. Correlation does not mean causation but correlation certainly strengthens an argument! This one I will eliminate due to its strengthening qualities.
(C) Correct. This doesn't really do too much to the argument. It is just saying that they already are cynical. It doesn't necessarily weaken the argument - it doesn't really do much of anything. However, this is good because it means that it definitely doesn't strengthen the argument. This is correct thereby.
(D) This strengthens the argument. This is saying "hey, I am an advertising guy and I don't care if the info is right or not!" Absolutely this means that we should be skeptical and thus it strengthens the argument. I'll eliminate this answer choice because of that.
(E) This also strengthens the argument. This is saying that there are no legal penalties for perhaps having some bad information. That sucks but it also gives us a reason to believe the argument.

[Mab6q]

Is the problem with this argument the fact that the author assumes that because the motive does not compel businesses to present accurate information then they must be doing presenting the information inaccurately? In other words, the author fails to consider that just because something could be happening dosent mean it necessarily is??

Thanks

[Mab6q]

Is the problem with this argument the fact that the author assumes that because the motive does not compel businesses to present accurate information then they must be doing presenting the information inaccurately? In other words, the author fails to consider that just because something could be happening dosent mean it necessarily is??

Thanks

What the hell was I talking about? lol

[tommywallach]

Ha! So I assume you don't need an answer anymore?

: )

-t

[NickL337]

I thought B) was the correct answer choice and I still don't feel convinced that I understand the correct answer with the explanations above.

B) Seems similar to an appeal to tradition fallacy to me - "since it happened then, it will be true later or in the present" - which isn't necessarily true.
C) It's practically exactly what the conclusions says - providing support to the conclusion being true.


The differences I see from C) to the conclusion are that it describes the group as "many" instead of "consumers" and "cynical" instead of "skeptical."

In regards to it using "many," that word could mean the majority or the minority which just so happens to be a large group of people (but the people who have opinions being much bigger. BUT regardless of which one it offers at least a tiny bit of support because at least a few people have the view suggested by the conclusion, which is better than nothing at all.

In regards to the cynical vs skeptical bit, cynical meaning they would suspect someone is working for self interests in an untrustworthy manner e.g. lying to others for their own benefit. Skeptical would be a characteristic I would use to describe an aspect of cynicism regardless of the context.