Q18 - For consumers, the most enjoyable

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
We start with an "opposing" point (it's not really opposing, but it's not the author's main point). We know this because the author then pivots using "but".

From there, the author states that the retailers use a tactic "too often", denoting opinion. There's a good chance this is the conclusion (a pivot to an opinion that reflects the author's opinion on what comes before the "but" usually is), and that's backed up by the following statements, which support the idea in the pivot statement.

This argument is interesting in that there's a second counterpoint/point in the second half of the stimulus (promotions make people feel lucky, but they cut into profits and customer loyalty), but this is all in service to proving that using these promotions isn't always a good idea.

Answer Anticipation:
It's rare to get an ID the Conclusion question in the difficult stretch of LR, but it's not unheard of. Here, recognizing the pivot word leading to an opinion statement ("too often" denoting how the author feels) is key to quickly finding the conclusion and thus your answer.

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is true for consumers, but this answer says it's true for everyone. Additionally, this is the context/initial opposing point, not the main conclusion.

(B) This statement comes immediately before the pivot, and thus is exceptionally unlikely to be the main point (much more likely it's the opposing point).

(C) Bingo. "Overused" matches with "too often" which was the key opinion stated, and the content matches the content of the argument.

(D) I would view this as an enticing trap answer, since it's another statement coming after a pivot. However, this seems more fact-like (you could do a study to show it), and it serves as evidence that using such promotions can be overdone, so I'd ultimately need to rule it out.

(E) The author feels that advertising price cuts is overused. This answer talks about making consumer feel lucky, which could be done through other means. It's also talking about things outside the scope of the argument (retail success).

Takeaway/Pattern: The common form (opposing point, main point, evidence) rears its head again, even in a more difficult question! When there are two pivots, it's really important to focus on which of the pivots is more opinion-y, and which one supports the other. Here, both of those considerations lead to the first pivot as the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Hi, I chose D...why is D wrong? isnt it directly from the stimulus?
also C isnot writtwn in the argument...they usually pull sentence out from the stimulus for this type of question I thought

Also could you explain whatD means?:(

[arendtesque]

I guess sometimes the conclusion is not directly stated in the stimulus, as is the case here.

The second part of the second sentence states that "retailers resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares TOO OFTEN (so the author's attitude is kind of disapproving)". Based only on the first part of the second sentence, as well as the first sentence in the stimulus, you would not be able to understand why the author thinks they use the strategy too often. It is the third sentence that explains why retailers should resort to this strategy less frequently, because while the promotions can satisfy the customers' emotional experience of being lucky, they also tend to cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty. So overall, the third sentence functions more like an explanation for the second sentence, rather than a conclusion in itself.

Hope that helps.

[LsatCrusher822]

This was an unusually difficult main point/conclusion question...

I made the same mistake and chose D because I thought that was best supported by the stimulus. To me it made more sense that because retailers too often resorted to advertised price cuts to promote their wares, that leads to cut profit margins and undermined customer loyalty. By using the therefore/conclusion test, I thought this direction made more sense, rather than if we assume the "too often" portion to be the conclusion...

It would be great if somebody could provide further insight! Thanks

[mshinners]

This was an unusually difficult main point/conclusion question...

I made the same mistake and chose D because I thought that was best supported by the stimulus. To me it made more sense that because retailers too often resorted to advertised price cuts to promote their wares, that leads to cut profit margins and undermined customer loyalty. By using the therefore/conclusion test, I thought this direction made more sense, rather than if we assume the "too often" portion to be the conclusion...

It would be great if somebody could provide further insight! Thanks

Love that you're using the therefore test! It's definitely what you want to do here.

Let's look at the two statements in question - both come after pivots, so they're both candidates for main point.

Retailers too often resort to advertised price cuts to promote wares.
Advertised price cuts cut into profit margins and undermine loyalty.

Our two "therefore" test versions are:
Retailers too often resort to advertised price cuts to promote wares. Therefore, advertised price cuts cut into profit margins and undermine loyalty.

Advertised price cuts cut into profit margins and undermine loyalty. Therefore, retailers too often resort to advertised price cuts to promote wares.

Neither one makes for a good argument, but the first one also doesn't make sense. You wouldn't use the fact that something is used too often to prove that there are specific, negative outcomes associated with it. Instead, you'd do what the second version does - use the specific, negative outcomes in an attempt to prove that using the strategy isn't always the right move.

As to another question in the thread, (C) is absolutely stated in the argument - "but too often" is almost a word-for-word paraphrase of the answer choice. It's important, when studying for the LSAT, that you don't overcalibrate your language usage - while you have to be careful that you don't treat words that mean different things the same, you can overdo it and start to see any language shift as being problematic. That's not the case! There are plenty of valid synonyms/rephrasings, and (C) is a perfect example of an answer that changes the language but doesn't change the meaning. I actually think that it's a solid enough example I'd recommend using it as a benchmark if you find yourself regularly "overtuned".

[huskybins]

IMHO, I would say why D is wrong is simply because its missing "too often" (generally LsatCrusher822's logic is correct). So if D is written as "using advertised price cut too often reduces profit margins and undermines customer loyalty," then it also pretty much produces a sound logic as what C does.

Then the relation between revised D and C can be: revised D can be used as the premise to prove C: i.e. using advertised price cut too often reduces profit margins and undermines customer loyalty, (therefore) advertised price cuts are overused as a means of gaining retail sales.

But if revised D and C are both displayed for choice, I would choose revised D over C as it is directly and accurately supported by the whole stimulus while C is kind of stretch from D under this situation.

This was an unusually difficult main point/conclusion question...

I made the same mistake and chose D because I thought that was best supported by the stimulus. To me it made more sense that because retailers too often resorted to advertised price cuts to promote their wares, that leads to cut profit margins and undermined customer loyalty. By using the therefore/conclusion test, I thought this direction made more sense, rather than if we assume the "too often" portion to be the conclusion...

It would be great if somebody could provide further insight! Thanks

Love that you're using the therefore test! It's definitely what you want to do here.

Let's look at the two statements in question - both come after pivots, so they're both candidates for main point.

Retailers too often resort to advertised price cuts to promote wares.
Advertised price cuts cut into profit margins and undermine loyalty.

Our two "therefore" test versions are:
Retailers too often resort to advertised price cuts to promote wares. Therefore, advertised price cuts cut into profit margins and undermine loyalty.

Advertised price cuts cut into profit margins and undermine loyalty. Therefore, retailers too often resort to advertised price cuts to promote wares.

Neither one makes for a good argument, but the first one also doesn't make sense. You wouldn't use the fact that something is used too often to prove that there are specific, negative outcomes associated with it. Instead, you'd do what the second version does - use the specific, negative outcomes in an attempt to prove that using the strategy isn't always the right move.

As to another question in the thread, (C) is absolutely stated in the argument - "but too often" is almost a word-for-word paraphrase of the answer choice. It's important, when studying for the LSAT, that you don't overcalibrate your language usage - while you have to be careful that you don't treat words that mean different things the same, you can overdo it and start to see any language shift as being problematic. That's not the case! There are plenty of valid synonyms/rephrasings, and (C) is a perfect example of an answer that changes the language but doesn't change the meaning. I actually think that it's a solid enough example I'd recommend using it as a benchmark if you find yourself regularly "overtuned".

[HikaruC973]

I'm still very confused. I take "too often they resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares" as an observed fact, and "they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty" as the consequence of that "too often resort". So I still don't see why D is incorrect.

[AbhistD667]

I'm still very confused. I take "too often they resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares" as an observed fact, and "they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty" as the consequence of that "too often resort". So I still don't see why D is incorrect.

I believe that D is incorrect because it is rebutting the counter point in the first part of last statement. Such rebuttals are, as far as I have seen, never the conclusion but are always supporting the conclusion.