#25 - Direct-mail advertising usually consists of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (B)

Here, the stimulus author argues that the perception that direct-mail advertising is bad for the
environment is incorrect. The author does not say why the perception exists, but we may presume
it has to do with the paper and other resources used to mail advertisements to people at home.
In support of the view that the direct-mail advertising is not bad for the environment, the author
points out that direct-mail advertising causes millions of people to buy products from home, either
by telephone or online, rather than driving their cars to a store to purchase the products. Having
millions of people not make that trip to the store prevents the addition of pollutants to the air, and
so the author concludes that the perception that direct-mail marketing is bad for the environment is
misguided.

This is a Strengthen question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will provide additional
support for the view that direct-mail advertising is not bad for the environment, and likely will
connect specifically to the existing premise relating to millions of people no longer driving to the store to make purchases.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice weakens the conclusion by pointing out that not as many
pollutants are kept from the air as the author led us to believe.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, because it tells us that the products
purchased as a result of direct-mail marketing are actually replacing, and not just additional to, the
products people would have bought without the use of direct-mail marketing. This is important
because the purported environmental benefit of direct-mail marketing is that it keeps millions of
people from driving to stores to make purchases. If the direct-mail marketing-induced purchases are
just additional purchases, then those millions of consumers would still be getting in their cars and
driving to the stores.

Answer choice (C): Here, the answer choice supports the idea that direct-mail advertising is
effective, but does not strengthen the conclusion that it is not bad for the environment.

Answer choice (D): As with answer choice (C), this information supports the view that direct-mail
marketing is effective, but does not tell us anything further about the environmental impact of direct-mail
marketing.

Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice has no effect on the conclusion, because unlike answer
choice (B) it does not tell us whether the direct-mail marketing purchases are in place of, rather than
in addition to, purchases made by consumers driving to stores.

[Basia W]

Good evening,

I chose E thinking that this could account for why the gas saved by not driving and the pollutants not produced. I found this question rather difficult. Could you elaborate why B is correct?

Best,

Basia

[Robert Carroll]

Basia,

Answer choice (E) doesn't work because it's a percent-based answer in a situation where you need to know numbers. Even if the percent goes up, that doesn't tell us that the number of products bought using a car went down, so it's possible that the total of products bought went up so much that (E) could be correct but still more people could be using cars. Remember that a percent alone can't tell you about hard numbers, and in this case, you lack information about numbers, so the percent isn't closing the relevant gap.

Answer choice (B) strengthens the argument because it was vulnerable to the criticism that, even if it increases what people buy online or by phone, that doesn't mean people are REPLACING purchases that use gasoline to make those online purchases; they could instead just be making them IN ADDITION. If, instead, people were going to buy that stuff anyway, the fact that direct-mail advertising caused them to buy the stuff by phone or online instead means that each such purchase is replacing a purchase that might have used a car - so the argument is strengthened.

Robert Carroll

[Basia W]

Hello-

the light bulb went off- thank you!

Best,

Basia

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I have read the analysis below, but I still don't see why D is wrong. Can you explain? I thought it was D because if the business knows that customers are more interested then they are not wasting as much paper or materials which is good for the environment. Thank you.

V/r,

Micah

[Clay Cooper]

Hi micah,

Thanks for your question.

Answer choice D is wrong because it strengthens the conclusion less than answer choice B. If it is true that the advertisements go only to those who are already more interested than average in buying the product, that might suggest that the advertisements are not wasted (and thus might strengthen a little the idea that the criticism of these advertisements on environmental grounds is misguided). However, answer choice B provides more direct and convincing evidence along the same lines - if B is true, and we know that the advertisements prevent environmental waste by allowing purchases that would otherwise be made in person to be made through the mail, then not only are the advertisements not wasted (encompassing any strength D might lend to the conclusion), but also we know that some trips to the store are prevented as well, and we save additional resources in this way.

Thus, answer choice D is not terrible, but B is clearly better.

I hope that helps!

[kcho10]

Hi,

I'm still confused by this explanation for E. The conclusion is that the notion that direct-mail advertising is bad is misguided. But doesn't that mean the author thinks that direct-mail advertising is either good or neutral?

If that's the case, why does it matter whether or not direct mail advertising is replacing other types? Couldn't it not replace anything and still be considered neutral to the environment?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi kcho,

Thanks for the great question, and I want to elaborate on what was already said in Robert's and the Administrator's explanation because I see this as a great answer option meant to pull you into a trap. What does "increasingly large portion" really mean? Can you definitively say that it is neutral? Can you say whether portion means a percentage of a whole or just a raw number?
In fact we cannot and therefore we cannot say it is neutral because in fact, it may weaken the argument as explained in Robert's number example above.

So we really cannot say that this answer choice strengthens an even neutral conclusion by the author.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[alexmcc]

Hello I goofed on this question when I made the modern-day assumption that non-grocery goods are likely to be bought off Amazon and without the use of direct mail advertising. Answer B didn't click before I marked it as a loser. And buying things online or over the phone still requires a car to deliver the goods, which definitely would've been a good Weaken answer if the question was a Weaken question.

I still should've read the passage more at face value and paid more careful attention to the premise, that if products advertised through direct mail aren't purchased through direct mail, then the purchase of those products would require the use of a car. Is that a correct phrasing of that premise?

[HowardQ]

Hi,

I have a question regarding the correct answer B here. I think B is more like a necessary assumption here, although it strengthens it here, it's implied within the passage. D, however, increase the chance of the argument being true, since it address a flaw in the reasoning that there is no way to suspect tradeoff between fuel and paper gave the return on the advertisement is unknown.

My main confusion is in these strengthen questions, should we go straight for a necessary assumption? Because if it's not assumed, it for sure strengthens the passage the most.

Thanks,