LR Question 22 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Drug company manager: Our newest product is…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: We should try the plan.
REASONING: The plan might work.
ANALYSIS: This is not a good argument. The drug company manager has only talked about the benefits of the marketing plan: it might save the product.
But any action has downsides too. Maybe the marketing plan is really expensive. Or maybe it will distract from the company’s other products.
To make this a good argument, the manager would have to show the downsides as well as the benefits of the plan.
Since we’re trying to weaken the plan, we should show that it has downsides. And we need specific information about the new drug or about marketing. Most of the wrong answers just give us context that doesn’t apply to the situation.
___________
- This strengthens the idea that we should try to save the product. But we’re trying to weaken the argument.
- This is useless information. Many new products fail. Many succeed. Who cares? This answer doesn’t tell us what will happen to this product if we run a marketing campaign.
- This is useless. The marketing plan has some chance of succeeding, so the statement in this answer doesn’t apply.
- CORRECT. This shows there is a downside to the marketing plan. We don’t know if the plan will succeed, so it’s not a good idea to risk the company’s other products.
- Great! This means the company has lots of money. This doesn’t tell us whether or not the company should try to save the new product with a marketing plan.
Recap: The question begins with “Drug company manager: Our newest product”. It is a Weaken question. To practice more Weaken questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
For answer C: The question stem asks us to assume that the answers are true. If the marketing plan has no chance of succeeding, that would seem like the thing that would essentially completely negate the reasoning and thus be the thing that “most seriously weakens” the argument. Can you explain why this isn’t the case?
The first thing I want to point out is that answer choice C contains a conditional statement while the stimulus doesn’t. This should raise alarm bells. Answer choice C only gives us a conditional relationship about what the company should do if the campaign has no chance. But do we know if the company actually has no chance? What we’re assuming to be true for C is just this conditional advice, not that the campaign won’t succeed. And in the stimulus, we’re told that it “won’t guarantee success” but that leaves room for the possibility of success.