Q2 - A study found that consumers

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: ad for product X was effective at making some people buy product X
Evidence: people who checked out before ad aired were less likely to buy product X than were people who checked out after the ad aired.

Any prephrase?
Rule out an alternate reason why people after the ad were more likely to buy X, or make it more plausible that the ad influenced their decision to buy X

Answer choice analysis:
A) This is an irrelevant division of percentages.

B) This rules out an alternate cause (already intended to buy X).

C) This doesn't help us analyze whether the ad was a causal factor. It also doesn't distinguish between the consumers who heard the ad and those who didn't.

D) This weakens the argument. It sounds like the ad was probably not a (conscious) causal factor.

E) This doesn't help us analyze whether the ad was a causal factor. It also doesn't distinguish between the consumers who heard the ad and those who didn't.


The correct answer is B.

Takeaway/Pattern: Causality/Explanation. The evidence was a correlation: "Ppl who heard the ad were more likely to buy product X than were people who didn't hear the ad". The conclusion assigns causality to that relationship. "The ad was effective (at influencing the purchasing of product X". The answers are concerned with Alternative Explanations for the evidence or the Plausibility of the Author's Interpretation (choice D works against the plausibility that the author's interpretation is correct)

#officialexplanation

[pinkdatura]

Pls correct me if I think wrong on this question:

Stimulus:
premise: likelihood of purchase a given product:
consumer listen> consumer didn't listen
conclusion: AD --> purchase a given product (C&E)

A scope shift went through checkout line ~= purchase
C,D weaken , AD not involved
E no impact, frequency is irrelevant

My question would be why in stimulus mention within 40 min after airing AD reaching check line vs prior check line? Why just be simple as before the AD and after AD, pardon me, it is exactly the place I think too convoluted and fell in the trap.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We don't need to think of this one too abstractly. In fact, trying to employ sophisticated strategies that work for more difficult questions, will often end in disaster this early in the section.

We're asked to strengthen this argument. We simply need to focus on the conclusion that the ads were effective and seek an answer choice that makes the conclusion more likely to be true.

(A) is irrelevant. This is an irrelevant division of percentages.
(B) strengthens the conclusion that the ads were effective. If these people had already intended to purchase the advertised product, then the ads were not effective.
(C) doesn't tell us why they purchase those products.
(D) undermines the argument that the ads were effective.
(E) undermines the argument that the ads were effective.

So it looks like you're reasoning was pretty good. But I think you want to take another look at how some of the incorrect answers are impacting this argument. Does that help? Let me know if you still have questions on this one.

[yusangmin]

what I didn't like bout this is that I'm assuming they didn't already have the intention of buying it before hearing the radio. what I don't like is that the wording makes it grey in that how do we know if they already HEARD the ads abe after they did they didn't intend to buy the product... but they someho did?

does it really connect or close holes?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Remember the ads are playing on the store's audio system so it's not as though these shoppers could have heard the ad before coming into the supermarket. So if the shoppers had already intended to purchase the product, then they made that decision without hearing the ad.

Good luck!

[cyruswhittaker]

So basically, B just makes explicit that a possible alternative reason for why the customers bought the product was not in effect. Is this correct? Although these earlier questions are generally easier, sometimes if you move too quickly through them you get trapped into an answer that seems correct on first glance.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Your analysis of what answer choice (B) is doing is correct. I agree you don't want to move so quickly that you misread statements, but you also want to be careful early on not to talk yourself out of the correct answer.

All too often, I see people who are excellent at identifying very complex reasoning structures and do well in the more difficult part of an LR section, and yet miss questions up front. They're simply out thinking themselves and should have gone with their gut instinct.

[cyruswhittaker]

Yes I can definately relate to that observation; it's happened to me before on questions. Either way, thanks for all of the help and explanations. I think it will definately come in handy for the test tomorrow.

[jardinsouslapluie5]

Okay, this is more on gramatical question.
I wonder why there is no comma between "advertisements" and "more"
(A) During the study, for most of the advertisements more people went through the checkout lines after they were aired han before they were aired.

I know this is really small thing, but every time I encounter the gramatical question, I get lost because I start to think I might be misinterpreting the stimulus.
I know LSAT does not make any gramatical error, but I just want to know why they didn't separate those clauses.

[wgutx08]

Isn't B an abnormally weak strengthener?

1. it does not directly strengthen the causal relationship but only exclude another potential cause.
2. Then it wouldn't even exclude it completely but only for some (a large portion (= many???!!??))

There are so many easy assumptions you could add to take away the itty-bitty strengthening power... how painful is the "a large portion" part...

Or is this normal? Maybe there are many similar strengtheners???what do the Gurus, and everybody else think of it???

[rachellewrx]

Okay, this is more on gramatical question.
I wonder why there is no comma between "advertisements" and "more"
(A) During the study, for most of the advertisements more people went through the checkout lines after they were aired han before they were aired.

I know this is really small thing, but every time I encounter the gramatical question, I get lost because I start to think I might be misinterpreting the stimulus.
I know LSAT does not make any gramatical error, but I just want to know why they didn't separate those clauses.

I have the same question here.

[tommywallach]

Yeah, it's a bit weird. Oh well. I'm not sure I see another interpretation of it anyway...

-t

[ganbayou]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: ad for product X was effective at making some people buy product X
Evidence: people who checked out before ad aired were less likely to buy product X than were people who checked out after the ad aired.

Any prephrase?
Rule out an alternate reason why people after the ad were more likely to buy X, or make it more plausible that the ad influenced their decision to buy X

Answer choice analysis:
A) This is an irrelevant division of percentages.

B) This rules out an alternate cause (already intended to buy X).

C) This doesn't help us analyze whether the ad was a causal factor. It also doesn't distinguish between the consumers who heard the ad and those who didn't.

D) This weakens the argument. It sounds like the ad was probably not a (conscious) causal factor.

E) This doesn't help us analyze whether the ad was a causal factor. It also doesn't distinguish between the consumers who heard the ad and those who didn't.


The correct answer is B.

Takeaway/Pattern: Causality/Explanation. The evidence was a correlation: "Ppl who heard the ad were more likely to buy product X than were people who didn't hear the ad". The conclusion assigns causality to that relationship. "The ad was effective (at influencing the purchasing of product X". The answers are concerned with Alternative Explanations for the evidence or the Plausibility of the Author's Interpretation (choice D works against the plausibility that the author's interpretation is correct)

Hi,
I thought A is actually related because if the number of consumer increased between before the ad. is aired and after the ad. is aired, wouldn't that explain the ad. is actually effective?
Or...I thought it shows evidence of what is discussed in the stimulus.
Or is it wrong because it just kind of repeating what is discussed in the argument and the increase could be a coincidence?

Thank you