Q7 - Advertisement: Over 80 percent

[wj097]

Hi, this is an old test and felt like (C) and (D) would, in absence of the other, would each a viable answer especially in modern PTs. But want to hear Geeks thought.

P: If test drove, 80%+ chance of buying
IC: if test drive, will have 80%+ chance of buying
MC: If not prepared, should not test drive

Major flaw/gap in the argument
1. From P to IC, there is a implied causation; the past is projected to future
2. From IC to MC, unwarranted shift to a recommendation; there might be other reason you should test drive, despite that you are not prepared to buy

(C) seems to be getting at 1. by alluding reverse causation.
(D) while doesn't go after the major gap, possibly weakens the IC, as it suggests that it can be much lower than 80% chance, if you test drive just once.

I think for this question ,(C) is much clear weakener, as (D) goes after the ambiguous distinction of the meaning of a single term , test drive (once, twice...).

However, I just feel the modern test would be more careful in this regard or maybe I am simply being to generous with (D)...

Thx.

[patrice.antoine]

Not a geek or guru here but I think you're giving (D) more credit than you should. The stimulus never talks about quantity of test drives. It simply states that if you test-drive there is an 80+% chance you will choose to purchase it from that fact that 80+% percentage end up buying one.

(D) presents a situation of quantity of test-drives but ultimately leads to the same conclusion - people end up buying the car. It does nothing to weaken or cast doubt on the conclusion. It may very well support it.

Just my .02 cents.

[griffin.811]

Really working desperately to get to the point where 2 answers rarely seem correct on LR.

Still have work to do because I was debating E here. I eventually eliminated it because it says "some" cars have issues. This doesn't necessarily mean that the quality of the car is poor, just about everything has issues with at least a few (some) models.

Unless you buy something like a Rolls Royce where they should be personally human testing everything 100 times.

But for us norms...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's how we see this one...

We're asked to weaken the position that the quality of a Zenith is unusually impressive. The evidence offered in the advertisement is that over 80 percent of people who test-drive a Zenith buy one.

One argument structure we see a lot on Strengthen and Weaken questions is that some observed phenomenon is presented, and then the conclusion seeks to explain it. That's happening here too. 80 percent of people who test-drive a Zenith buy it. Why? Because the quality of a Zenith is unusually impressive.

To undermine this argument structure, we typically look for an alternative explanation. Answer choice (C) provides an alternative explanation for why 80% of people who test-drive a Zenith buy one--they're already decided to buy one!

Incorrect Answers
(A) strengthens the argument by suggesting that people who test-drive a Zenith are more likely to be well informed on the quality of the car.
(B) is too weak. These people who test-drive still need to be convinced to buy a Zenith (they're only considering one), and fails to explain why 80 percent of test-drivers buy a Zenith. Answer choice (C), however, provides a statement about the overwhelming majority of test-drivers.
(D) is irrelevant. The advertisement never suggests that people will buy a Zenith right away.
(E) is too weak to affect the argument. That a part breaks in some cars is not enough to challenge the idea that the quality is still unusually impressive.

[WaltGrace1983]

Really working desperately to get to the point where 2 answers rarely seem correct on LR.

Still have work to do because I was debating E here. I eventually eliminated it because it says "some" cars have issues. This doesn't necessarily mean that the quality of the car is poor, just about everything has issues with at least a few (some) models.

Unless you buy something like a Rolls Royce where they should be personally human testing everything 100 times.

But for us norms...

One fault with (E) is that it really doesn't relate in anyway to the premises. We are coming from the perspective of how the premises could be true (that 80% of the people who test drive the car buy it) while the conclusion (that the car has unusually impressive quality) is not exactly justified. (E) makes some claim about the quality of the car but not nearly enough to say that it is "unusually impressive" or not. So a MINOR part breaks, this could still mean the quality is impressive! Yet, as I said, the bigger problem with (E) is that it never relates to the test drive itself.

[coco.wu1993]

D is both irrelevant and overbroad. It talks about cars in general, not Zenith.

I think A is wrong for another reason. It attacks the premise that "if you drive a Zenith around the block..." instead of the argument. Any thought on this?

Also, the question stem says "casts doubt on that implication". Does it mean we should find an answer weakens the conclusion, not the argument?