LSAT 159 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Advertising agencies are often wrongly criticized for …

QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument

CONCLUSION: Ad agencies don’t create desires, but merely use existing desire to get people to buy products. (Implied conclusion)

REASONING:

• People wrongly criticize ad agencies for “causing” people to buy things they don’t need.
• Actually, people buy things because they believe it’ll satisfy their desires.
• It’s the purpose of ad agencies to make people believe products will satisfy their desires.

ANALYSIS: The author’s point is that people’s desires are already there. The job of ad agencies is just to make people believe the products will satisfy that desire, in order to get people to buy products.

So ad agencies are using desires, but not creating them. The author’s goal is to defend advertising agencies against the accusation that they cause people’s desires.

___________

1. The author doesn’t mention needs. It is critics who say that people don’t really need products that ads advertise. But the author disagrees with the critics!
2. This contradicts the author. Their point was that ad agencies don’t create desires. The word “actually” in the 2nd sentence indicates that the author disagrees with the first sentence.
3. The author is defending ad agencies. This answer attacks them by suggesting that purchases will be unsatisfying. But the author’s point was to show that people are buying products in order to try to fulfill real desires!
    
   There are a ton of societal messages to be jaded and cynical about ads, but you simply cannot go on social autopilot when reading the LSAT. This author is pro-ad, they go against typical narratives.
4. CORRECT. This fits perfectly: people already have desires. Advertising just targets these desires and tries to link products to them.
5. Backwards. The stimulus says ads induce the belief that products will satisfy desires, not that desires about products induce belief in the ads.
    
   The argument’s final sentence is potentially confusing because the sentence + answer are in passive voice, which is backwards. Fully written out in active voice, the sentence would be:
    
   >”Advertisers exploit existing desires to make people believe products will satisfy their desires; the advertisers do not create these desires.”