QUESTION TEXT: The makers of Activite, a natural dietary…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: Activite must work.
REASONING: If you buy Activite, you’ll get an extra month’s supply for free.
ANALYSIS: This question is rather confusing. I think it may be flawed by ambiguity. I’m going to break from my usual style and start by discussing the right answer, D. It says that the shipping fee is much more than the cost of making and shipping product.
This does weaken the argument, but it’s not clear exactly how the situation plays out. This is unusual for an LSAT question, and it makes it difficult to predict the answer or think clearly about the situation in order to critique it. I can see at least three possibilities. I’ve sketched them out below.
I think the situation is as follows:
- You buy Activite. You don’t pay for the first month’s product. It’s free.
- (As per answer D) However, you pay the regular handling fee.
Another possible situation is this:
- You buy Activite, and pay for it.
- The makers will therefore also send you a free extra month’s supply.
- (according to answer D) You’ll also be charged a heavy handling fee for the free product.
A third possible situation is this:
- You buy Activite. You get a regular supply + an extra month’s supply. Both are shipped in the same package.
- It’s not much more expensive to pack and ship the second package along with the first. Neither the product nor shipping costs much.
- The handling fee covers the cost of both sets.
In all situations, the handling fee covers the cost of the extra product.
___________
- This answer is trying to show that Activite isn’t necessary. But that’s not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that it is useful. A lot of people don’t eat balanced diets, so perhaps they could benefit from Activite.
- The argument isn’t about whether Activite is the best option. It’s only about whether Activite works. For the purposes of the argument, it wouldn’t matter if Activite cost $1 billion, as long as it worked.
- This just says “most” dietary supplements. That might not include Activite. This answer is useless.
- CORRECT. If this is true, then Activite is still making a profit even on the free offers. Therefore, they could afford this strategy even if the product didn’t work and no one reordered.
- This statement is true, but we’re not looking for something that is true. This answer doesn’t mean that Activite has harmful side effects. And Activite might be effective even if it had some side effects. Most drugs have side effects, but we consider them to be effective drugs nonetheless.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Andy says
I think there might be another way to look at this question. The last sentence suggests that if Activite isn’t effective, it wouldn’t be in the company’s interest to offer a free month. So to weaken this, we can find a situation where the company would still benefit even if it’s not effective. D does this. This is just how I looked at this question.
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
I wouldn’t necessarily say this is another way of looking at the question since the aim of the explanation is to show that (D) is a scenario where the product is ineffective but the company still profits. But yes, this is definitely another correct way of wording the reasoning for (D) being correct.
Yan Wang says
I have a question. If this was a flaw question, how would you describe the flaw? Thank you.
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
The author is saying that there are two possible scenarios:
1. Activite is effective, and therefore it’s in the company’s interest to give a free month’s supply.
2. Activite is ineffective, and therefore it’s not in the company’s interest to give a free month’s supply.
The flaw here is that the author is limiting the potential scenarios re: Activite to two, and (D) weakens the argument because it suggests that there are other possibilities. Maybe Activite is ineffective, but it’s worth it for the company to offer a free month’s supply for the reasons that Graeme outlines in the explanation.
This is a common flaw/logical fallacy on the LSAT, and it’s often referred to as a “False Dilemma” in contexts outside the LSAT as well. When someone makes an argument by suggesting that there are only a limited number of possibilities, rules out all the possibilities except one, and then concludes that that possibility is true/must be the case, they’re setting up a False Dilemma. They’re not considering that they’ve mistakenly limited the total number of available possibilities.
Ravinder Singh says
You say in the beginning that the correct answer choice D says that the shipping fee is more than the what it costs to make and ship the product but my test says that “The makers of Activite charge a handling fee that PACK and ship their product”. If it did say that it costs more to make, then I would have easily chose that answer. But just packing doesn’t really justify that they were making a profit on it.
FounderGraeme Blake says
>what it costs to make and ship the product
Where did I write that? I don’t see that in my explanation. Anyway, this is just a weaken question. It’s true, as you say, that the shipping fee might not result in profits. But the answer increases the odds that there were profits, and that’s enough for a weaken. You don’t need to destroy the argument with 100% certainty.