Q22 - Economist: Gifts of cash or gift cards

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weakens

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: People see more value in getting cash or gift cards than in getting a gift chosen for them.
Evidence: People were shown gifts that were chosen for them and asked at what price they would buy them. The price cited was only about 2/3 of the actual price.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument probably takes a few reads to untangle. The idea is that if you gave me a $30 gift card or $30 in cash, I would consider that worth $30. Meanwhile, when I cite what I'm willing to pay for $30 gifts that were chosen for me, I say only about $20. Thus, it looks like I value gifts chosen for me less than gift cards / cash.

But the term "value" is broader than "cash value". A lot of gifts we buy for each other are things we know others would not buy for themselves. We splurge on their behalf. Just because we couldn't bring ourselves to pay $30 for the perfect coffee tumbler (we would only let ourselves spend like $20 on something like that) doesn't mean that when we get that coffee tumbler as a gift we think we've only been given $20 of value.

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This seems to strengthen. It sounds like the author is right: we DON'T like the gifts that people get us. We're increasingly returning them to stores.

(B) Nobody cares about the gift-giving ratio of gift cards to cash to chosen-items. We just care about what recipients value more.

(C) This introduces a subsidiary distinction within the larger category of "gifts choses for them by others". We don't care about ranking those subsets against each other (chosen by people close to you vs. chosen by people not close to you). We care about ranking how much people value gifts chosen for them vs. gift cards / cash.

(D) YES. This helps us argue the anti-conclusion that "People value gifts chosen for them more than they value gift cards / cash". It sounds like the $30 object someone bought for me, which I said I would only be willing to pay $20 for, is something that I would only be willing to sell for $45. If I won't sell it for less than $45, it sounds like I value it MORE than I would have valued a $30 giftcard or $30 in cash.

(E) What a cool fun fact about retailers, (E)! Did you want to tell me what my options are, in re: getting store credit for these returns, if I don't have my receipt? Also, do you happen to have any information on whether people value gifts chosen for them more/less than gift cards or cash? No? Okay, bye.

Takeaway/Pattern: When an argument is based on a study / statistic, we usually Weaken the argument by providing more information that casts that study / statistic in a new light (either making us consider an alternative explanation for the data, or giving us more context that makes us adjust our opinions on the data). The correct answer is doing the latter: it initially looked bad to say that people would only PAY 2/3 the cash value of a chosen gift. But when you round that out with the fact that people would only SELL a chosen gift for 3/2 it's cash value, you are forced to adjust your opinion upwards on how much people value a gift chosen for them.

#officialexplanation

[MaryumE437]

Hello! I was initially stuck between C and D, but ultimately decided to eliminate C because it only said "willing to pay more," which I figured even if they're willing to pay more than two-thirds, they might still be paying less than the actual price, which wouldn't affect the argument at all. Since this is different reasoning than the explanation you provided for ruling out C, I just wanted to check if my thought process for this was still fine?
Thanks!

[Laura Damone]

Yep, that logic works, too! There are often multiple ways to rule out an answer and you've found another good one. Well done!

Moving forward, though, do look out for the particular pattern Patrick referenced in his explanation. It's really common and will help you eliminate answers all over the LSAT!