Q6 - Executive: We recently ran a set

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Here's a summary version of the argument:

Exec: We recently put up two types of ads -- print and website version. We don't know response to print ads. Consumer response to website ads low. Therefore, response to print ads likely low.

Now let's think about the answer choices:

(A) "prediction about intensity of phenomenon" is good, "information about phenomenon's cause is not" -- we're not told anything about what caused print advertising. This choice doesn't represent the argument well.

(B) is tempting, but notice we are using info about website ads to conclude something about print ads -- this answer is about using info about one thing (say, website ads) to conclude something about that same thing (website ads).

(C) doesn't represent the situation in the argument -- for one, we don't have a large number of specific incidences we are drawing from.

(D) is correct, and represents the argument well. The author is using evidence about website advertisement to draw a conclusion about print advertising.

(E) is tempting, but we're not predicting the future based on the past.

Hope that helps! Of course, please feel free to follow up if I haven't addressed any concerns you might have.


#officialexplanation

[nanagyanewa]

Could someone please explain this question to me? I don't really understand the difference between answer B and D. Any help will be greatly appreciated

[kyuya]

I'll break down this stimulus first, and then get into the language of some of the answer choices.

- Ran a set of ads on website and print (magazine)
- unable to get info about the print ads
- however, response to ads on the internet was lower than expected
- therefore, the print ads (which we have NO information about) is probably below par as well.

So what is wrong here? Obviously, we cannot draw a conclusion about one medium (print) from another medium (website) because the ways in which they are not similar could be so profound that it makes them a bad comparison. For example, what if more people read print than ads on the computer, so ads on the computer can't tell us much about print - because print could be have been above par.

However, we aren't asked to find the flaw, but how this argument is reasoning its way to its conclusion. I still think it is useful though. Ultimately the author is drawing a comparison from one distinct group to make a conclusion about another.

Lets go into the answer choices.

(A) It is not basing anything on the intensity of the phenomenons cause. As discussed previously, it is comparing two separate groups, and the language in this answer choice seems to preclude that as a possibility (only speaking about one phenomenon singularly). Furthermore, there is no discussion about a cause at all.

(B) This answer choice is wrong in many ways.

Firstly, "uses information about the typical frequency", right away this is incorrect. This just does not occur in the argument, a typical frequency is never alluded to. All we know is one frequency was sub par, and therefore another is likely to be sub par. TYPICAL frequency is never spoken about.

Secondly, "..events of a general kind" again, this is simply not what is happening in this argument. There are no events about a general kind being drawn to a particular thing. Lets once again look what is happening. Ads on internet sub par = ads in print probably sub par (even though we dont KNOW). Where is it going general to specific? it isn't. It just inferring one thing from another although they are possibility inappropriate to compare.

(C) "statistical generalization" and "large number of specific instances" are both large red flags.

We know that there are no statistical generalizations. Where are stats being brought up, or generalizations for that matter? There are no hard numbers here, so statistics are not alluded to. Where are the generalizations? No sweeping broad statements are to be found, but just a likely bad inference.

(D) Uses a case in which direct evidence is available (ads on the internet are sub par) to draw conclusion about an analogous case (the ads in print) in which direct evidence is not available. This just fits perfectly.

However.. I accidentally skipped over this, and maybe I am not the only one who did so because of the word "analogous". I think I misinterpreted this word not to mean "somewhat similar" but, as some type of comparison that is distinct from this situation but parallels it. I was expecting for the word analogous to mean something that it wasn't intended to mean, so I think the lesson here is to make sure you look at words in context and don't be trigger happy eliminating answers, especially ones that look otherwise pretty good.

(E) this is just really wrong. No future events are talked about.

[ganbayou]

I think I was confused by the word "kind" in B.
I thought the "kind" refers to "ad."
So I thought B is correct because in the stimulus it is talking about the tendency of ads to draw a conclusion about a type of ad.
Even if I read the answer choice this way, it is still wrong?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

Yes, it's still wrong. The flaw isn't about going from the general to the particular. It's about drawing a conclusion about one kind from another, different kind.

[hanhansummer]

I admit that D correctly articulates the logic of the argument. However, it seems to me that it fails to spell out the flaw. I mean, the flaw should be that there is a significant difference between the two subjects in question, so it is a faulty analogy. (Not just there is an analogy.)

Or "to use a case with direct evidence to draw a conclusion about an analogous case without direct evidence" is always a wrong reasoning?