LR Question 12 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Manager: Our company’s mail-order sales have recently…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: Unlimited free shipping probably caused the increase in sales.
REASONING: Sales increased 25% around the time we offered unlimited free shipping.
ANALYSIS: The manager is making a causation-correlation error. If two things happen at the same time, that doesn’t mean that one causes the other.
We can strengthen the manager’s argument by eliminating alternate causes for the increase in sales, or by showing evidence that the free shipping did in fact cause the increase.
___________
- CORRECT. This shows that the sales increase is unusual in the industry. It wasn’t industry-wide growth that caused the increase. This makes it more likely that free shipping was in fact the cause.
- This weakens the argument. If customers didn’t know about the free shipping, then it’s unlikely it caused them to buy more.
- That’s nice for the company. Profits are fun. But this doesn’t say that the change in shipping policy caused the profits. Sales went up, so it makes sense that profits went up.
- Timing is irrelevant. If free shipping was important, then it would have had an impact even if the company was late to the game.
- Same as D. If free shipping was important, then it would be expected to have an impact whether the company was early or late.
Further, ‘most companies’ isn’t relevant. We care about the companies which account for most sales, which could be only 1-3 companies. Who cares if 1,000 tiny, irrelevant companies don’t offer free shipping, if amazon.com does?
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
“…whereas the company is a mail order company.” The passage doesn’t say it is; it refers only to the company’s mail-order sales. Mail-order could be a small portion of its sales.
Thanks for pointing that out Steve! The page has been updated.
I don’t totally understand why B weakens. If the company did widely advertise, then couldn’t the mail-order sales increase be explained by the greater visibility of the company rather than (or in addition to) the change in policy, thus making the conclusion that it was probably the policy only that caused the increase?
But we don’t know whether the company widely advertised *itself* during that period. All we know is that it didn’t advertise the policy.
So I see what you’re saying: it seems like B eliminates an alternate cause. But it doesn’t, because there still could have been advertising.
However, I’m not certain whether B actually weakens. It may simply have no impact. I’m going to leave the explanation as written for now though.
Andrew, I thought the same thing about choice (B). The advertising (regardless of what is being advertised) could increase the company’s brand awareness. Therefore, by NOT advertising, this would eliminate an alternate cause of the sales increase (brand awareness), thus strengthening the cause/effect relationship presented in the stimulus.
In response to Graeme — wouldn’t the mere act of the company advertising it’s change in policy mean the company is advertising *itself*? Why isn’t this an acceptable assumption to make? It seems like common sense that if a company advertises one of its policy changes, it is consequently advertising its own brand. After all, if one were to advertise a policy change without tying it to a company, it would hardly be reasonable to call this an advertisement.
Additionally, I don’t totally understand why (A) is correct. Is it because it says, “Mail-order sales have been deceasing *FOR COMPANIES*…” (including the company in the stimulus)? If instead, (A) stated, “Mail-order sales have been decreasing for *OTHER* companies…” would this be an incorrect answer choice because what other companies do is irrelevant to the argument?
Thanks in advance for the help.
You’re making a bunch of assumptions. This could be a billion dollar company with a $100 million advertising budget. They’re going to always be advertising. B only affects whether they specifically advertised the change in policy.
Even most smaller companies will have ad budgets. You’re possibly thinking of TV ads as the only ads. But there are lots of smaller options. Heck, when I first started tutoring I ran a Craigslist ad. It’s free, but it’s an advertisement.
So both you and Andrew are taking an extremely wide and unwarranted view of what B refers to. It talks about advertising the policy change, only. We have no idea what their regular advertising is like.