Q24 - The makers of Activite, handling fee

[poppyyjm]

Can someone please help me with this question please? Thank you so much in advance. I think I didn't get this question mainly because I'm not a native English speaker, so when I did the PT I didn't really know that a "handling fee" was. But after I googled it, I still can't wrap my head around this. So now I understand a handling fee is an additional fee the seller charges for expenses required to handle/ pack and ship the item, on a per item basis. Then it's just an additional fee that the seller charges for every item they sell. I get it now, but why would this hurt the argument? In the argument, it was mentioned that one month's of free supply was offered to new customers, but it didn't specify that even for these free samples a handling fee would be charged. So do we have to accept as fact that the customers would still have to pay for the handling fee even if they are getting free meds? Sorry if this sounds stupid or maybe it's a culture thing but from where I live, if free samples given out they're mailed to you completely free, meaning you don't pay the company anything. I guess I am taking this stimulus too literally, but can anyone help me with this? Thank you!

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks poppyyjim! I can see why this question is confusing, especially if you are not sure what a handling fee is. To answer this question, it is necessary to know that a handling fee is separate from the price of the product itself. If (D) were true, then the good wouldn’t really be free to customers.

In terms of the full argument core, here we have:

Activite is offering a month’s supply of their product free to new customers

-->
Offering free product would not be in Activite’s their interest unless the product were effective, so Activite must be effective.


At first this argument seems pretty strong. The assumption ends up resting on whether Activite might have an interest in offering the free month’s supply even if the product were not effective. (D) suggests that “free” isn’t really free, and thus weakens the argument. It suggests that Activite will make a profit from the “free” month’s supply. Profit is another interest.

(A) and (B) are incorrect because they do not harm the claim of effectiveness. A product can still be effective even if the product’s benefits can also be found elsewhere. For example, spinach still contains vitamin C even if oranges, broccoli, and peppers also contain vitamin C.

(E) addresses the conclusion’s claim of effectiveness, but points to the wrong premise. The author does not claim Activite is effective because it is natural.

(C) is a little more tempting, since it seems to suggest that the free month’s supply won’t be effective. However, it does not harm the argument that Activite is generally effective, and something can be effective even isn’t yet “fully effective.”

Hope that helps.
Best,
Rina

[kkate]

Is this one of atypical/rare cases where the answer choice attacks the premise as opposed to the conclusion?

[xiaofashix8686]

I have a question. What if this is a flaw question , how to discribe this the flaw in his reasoning ? Thank you.

[nexus_1]

I have a question. What if this is a flaw question , how to discribe this the flaw in his reasoning ? Thank you.

Not a geek, if i'm wrong, please correct me .

I think this one is tough. We must first find the cole.

conclusion: A is must be effective
why? They offer free use for a month, if not effective, it would not be in the company's interest.

I think the nature of this one is a causation.

So to weaken a causation, we can
1 show cause without effect
2 show effect without cause
3 show another cause.

In this one, MUST is a very important word in the conclusion. How do you know it MUST be effective? What if they did this because of other reason? What if they want to be famous?

So answer choice D provides another reason why they did this--- make money.

as for the flaw, i think the flaw here is possibility vs certainty .

it maybe a reason, but is that MUST be the reason?? There still may be other reasons to explain this.

Hope this helps.

[skela]

Thanks poppyyjim! I can see why this question is confusing, especially if you are not sure what a handling fee is. To answer this question, it is necessary to know that a handling fee is separate from the price of the product itself. If (D) were true, then the good wouldn’t really be free to customers.

In terms of the full argument core, here we have:

Activite is offering a month’s supply of their product free to new customers

-->
Offering free product would not be in Activite’s their interest unless the product were effective, so Activite must be effective.


At first this argument seems pretty strong. The assumption ends up resting on whether Activite might have an interest in offering the free month’s supply even if the product were not effective. (D) suggests that “free” isn’t really free, and thus weakens the argument. It suggests that Activite will make a profit from the “free” month’s supply. Profit is another interest.

(A) and (B) are incorrect because they do not harm the claim of effectiveness. A product can still be effective even if the product’s benefits can also be found elsewhere. For example, spinach still contains vitamin C even if oranges, broccoli, and peppers also contain vitamin C.

(E) addresses the conclusion’s claim of effectiveness, but points to the wrong premise. The author does not claim Activite is effective because it is natural.

(C) is a little more tempting, since it seems to suggest that the free month’s supply won’t be effective. However, it does not harm the argument that Activite is generally effective, and something can be effective even isn’t yet “fully effective.”

Hope that helps.
Best,
Rina

How could the company possibly make a profit from a handling fee that we're only told covers "packing and shipping"? What about the actual production costs? Lab material, labor, etc.

It costs X amount of money to produce and disperse a month's supply of Activite; the handling fee would literally have to cover that ENTIRE amount in order for it to be in the company's interest to give it away for free, not just the costs of "packing and shipping", which only comprise a small fraction of this total amount.

And if the handling fee were to cover said total amount, it would start to approach the actual cost of a month's supply of the product. Which would make it pretty transparently NOT FREE to any customer, who would obviously notice if a month's supply is normally worth, say, $100 and the handling fee is like $90. Why would anyone pay a handling fee that equals the cost of a product and believe they were getting something for free? This question was just awful.

[jiangzihaoalex]

Don't mean to sound rude but among the nebulous incorrect explanations given by Manhattan tutors this one is just so far off the mark that I could not let it be.

The way D weakens the conclusion "Activite must be effective, since it wouldn't be in the company's interest to make such an offer" has nothing to do with profit. The argument assumes that because the company is confident about the supplement's effectiveness, it uses this promotion strategy, otherwise it would cost them tremendous amount of money. How is it weakened by D? Well, D says it doesn't cost that much money to ship the drug at all! The company has already dropped such a large upfront "handling fee" to the manufacturer that the additional shipping fee is negligible. It's absolutely possible that the supplement is not effective and cannot sell, and the company just goes "oh well, since the shipping fee is nothing, instead of letting it sit there, we might as well send them for free and get whatever we could out of it."

[728610]

Don't mean to sound rude but among the nebulous incorrect explanations given by Manhattan tutors this one is just so far off the mark that I could not let it be.

The way D weakens the conclusion "Activite must be effective, since it wouldn't be in the company's interest to make such an offer" has nothing to do with profit. The argument assumes that because the company is confident about the supplement's effectiveness, it uses this promotion strategy, otherwise it would cost them tremendous amount of money. How is it weakened by D? Well, D says it doesn't cost that much money to ship the drug at all! The company has already dropped such a large upfront "handling fee" to the manufacturer that the additional shipping fee is negligible. It's absolutely possible that the supplement is not effective and cannot sell, and the company just goes "oh well, since the shipping fee is nothing, instead of letting it sit there, we might as well send them for free and get whatever we could out of it."

Unfortunately, I think you just misread the text. the company refers to the maker of Activite. And I think the explanation provided by tutor is right.

[728610]

I agree with you. But this question is a weaken question, which means it doesn't have to destroy the argument totally. Other options except for C are just irrelevant to the argument.

Thanks poppyyjim! I can see why this question is confusing, especially if you are not sure what a handling fee is. To answer this question, it is necessary to know that a handling fee is separate from the price of the product itself. If (D) were true, then the good wouldn’t really be free to customers.

In terms of the full argument core, here we have:

Activite is offering a month’s supply of their product free to new customers

-->
Offering free product would not be in Activite’s their interest unless the product were effective, so Activite must be effective.


At first this argument seems pretty strong. The assumption ends up resting on whether Activite might have an interest in offering the free month’s supply even if the product were not effective. (D) suggests that “free” isn’t really free, and thus weakens the argument. It suggests that Activite will make a profit from the “free” month’s supply. Profit is another interest.

(A) and (B) are incorrect because they do not harm the claim of effectiveness. A product can still be effective even if the product’s benefits can also be found elsewhere. For example, spinach still contains vitamin C even if oranges, broccoli, and peppers also contain vitamin C.

(E) addresses the conclusion’s claim of effectiveness, but points to the wrong premise. The author does not claim Activite is effective because it is natural.

(C) is a little more tempting, since it seems to suggest that the free month’s supply won’t be effective. However, it does not harm the argument that Activite is generally effective, and something can be effective even isn’t yet “fully effective.”

Hope that helps.
Best,
Rina

How could the company possibly make a profit from a handling fee that we're only told covers "packing and shipping"? What about the actual production costs? Lab material, labor, etc.

It costs X amount of money to produce and disperse a month's supply of Activite; the handling fee would literally have to cover that ENTIRE amount in order for it to be in the company's interest to give it away for free, not just the costs of "packing and shipping", which only comprise a small fraction of this total amount.

And if the handling fee were to cover said total amount, it would start to approach the actual cost of a month's supply of the product. Which would make it pretty transparently NOT FREE to any customer, who would obviously notice if a month's supply is normally worth, say, $100 and the handling fee is like $90. Why would anyone pay a handling fee that equals the cost of a product and believe they were getting something for free? This question was just awful.

[JorieB701]

One of the explanations above states the core as:
“Activite is offering a month’s supply of their product free to new customers

-->
Offering free product would not be in Activite’s their interest unless the product were effective, so Activite must be effective.”

---If this is the core, then I’m wondering if “offering free product would not be in Activite’s interest unless the product were effective” is meant to be a sub conclusion? And “Activite must be effective” is the main conclusion?

If this is the case, I’m wondering how? It doesn’t immediately stand out to me how the premise (offering a month free) supports this as a sub conclusion.

Another states the core as:
“conclusion: A is must be effective
why? They offer free use for a month, if not effective, it would not be in the company's interest.”

This was how I initially read the core and what makes me wonder along with a previous poster, if this is one of those incidences where the correct answer choice weakens the argument by attacking a conclusion?

The premise seems to be offering an albeit ridiculous conditional, no? That if the product didn’t hold up to the maker’s claims (not effective) --> it wouldn’t be in their best interest to make the offer. Then wouldn’t there be a valid contrapositive that if it’s in fact in their best interest to make the offer --> the product must necessarily be effective?

If D is true, it seems to negate that whole conditional and thus negate a premise, no?

This person also goes on to say that there’s some underlying causation happening here. And whoa, I didn’t initially see that. To be clear, what is the cause/effect?

Are they saying that the effectiveness is what caused them to offer the one month free?

[ohthatpatrick]

The argument core is this

CONCLUSION:
Activite must be effective

(why should we believe that?)

EVIDENCE:
They mail you a month's supply for free.
If Activite weren't effective, then it wouldn't be in the company's interest to do that.


The keywords of ...
CLEARLY [claim 1], SINCE [claim 2]

will always mean claim 1 was a conclusion and claim 2 was a premise for that conclusion.

A premise can itself be a subsidiary conclusion, but only if the argument has some claim that supports that premise.

In this case, the argument doesn't give us a reason WHY "it wouldn't be in the company's interest to offer a free month if the product were ineffective".

A reason why would sound like: "If it's ineffective, there's no point, because the only possible reason you'd benefit from this free mail-out is by convincing customers that your product works".

Since we don't have a supporting claim for the "since" idea, we can't call that premise a subsidiary conclusion.

That thing I bolded (the missing premise-for-the-premise) is something the argument is actually assuming, and the correct answer is going against that assumption.

"Convincing customers that the product works" isn't the ONLY way the company could benefit from this mail-out. After all, they might charge the customer some shipping fee that they make a profit on."

I agree that when we read (D), we now think that it's false to say "otherwise it wouldn't be in the company's interest". Reading (D) feels like falsifying that "since" premise.

Dat's coo'. (translation: "That is cool.")

No one ever said we can't go against a premise, and while LSAT almost never does (which is why test prep materials stress that thinking), there are a couple handfuls of examples in which the correct answer to a Weaken question seems to go against some explicit supporting idea.

Just ask yourself this: was that explicit supporting idea an OPINION?

If so, then it's fair game to be attacked (although, again, LSAT almost never does).

[Sylvia11]

Would (C) have been more correct had it said “... show any effectiveness “ instead of “to be fully effective?” I feel like that would go against the assumption that free trial is given out to demonstrate Activite’s effectiveness by showing that since it takes longer than 30 days to have any effect, there must be another motive.

[HughM388]

The argument core is this

CONCLUSION:
Activite must be effective

(why should we believe that?)

EVIDENCE:
They mail you a month's supply for free.
If Activite weren't effective, then it wouldn't be in the company's interest to do that.


The keywords of ...
CLEARLY [claim 1], SINCE [claim 2]

will always mean claim 1 was a conclusion and claim 2 was a premise for that conclusion.

A premise can itself be a subsidiary conclusion, but only if the argument has some claim that supports that premise.

In this case, the argument doesn't give us a reason WHY "it wouldn't be in the company's interest to offer a free month if the product were ineffective".

A reason why would sound like: "If it's ineffective, there's no point, because the only possible reason you'd benefit from this free mail-out is by convincing customers that your product works".

Since we don't have a supporting claim for the "since" idea, we can't call that premise a subsidiary conclusion.

That thing I bolded (the missing premise-for-the-premise) is something the argument is actually assuming, and the correct answer is going against that assumption.

"Convincing customers that the product works" isn't the ONLY way the company could benefit from this mail-out. After all, they might charge the customer some shipping fee that they make a profit on."

I agree that when we read (D), we now think that it's false to say "otherwise it wouldn't be in the company's interest". Reading (D) feels like falsifying that "since" premise.

Dat's coo'. (translation: "That is cool.")

No one ever said we can't go against a premise, and while LSAT almost never does (which is why test prep materials stress that thinking), there are a couple handfuls of examples in which the correct answer to a Weaken question seems to go against some explicit supporting idea.

Just ask yourself this: was that explicit supporting idea an OPINION?

If so, then it's fair game to be attacked (although, again, LSAT almost never does).

The people who raised questions on this point were on the ball, and I suspect they have some experience in order fulfillment, logistics, or, more basically, just operating a business than do our LSAT test-writers and consultants.

I believe that MP publish and sell books. Inquire, therefore, with the staff of your business and order-fulfillment departments about the likelihood of breaking even (let alone making a profit) by charging only for the shipping and handling of your books. Make it clear that you and your colleagues (those of you whom the company can continue to afford employing, that is) will be happy to reduce your wages to $.50/hour, or less, which is all that the revenues generated under the new business model will be able to support.

I describe that scenario in detail in order to clarify the fact that the plausibility of (D) as a weakener is like Lloyd Christmas weakening Mary Swanson's "Not good…one in a million" with "So you're telling me there's a chance." I mean, sure, maybe the odd person here or there gets eaten by a dinosaur, but on an important test should we be treating the likelihood of death by dinosaur as a standard for the eminently plausible? I'm not so sure. Please, readers, feel free to devise your own equally ludicrous propositions.

That being said, (D) was the best answer of the lot, though that's not saying much, obviously.