#1 - CEO: While we only have the sales reports for the first

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen, #%. The correct answer choice is (A).

The CEO concludes that, on the whole, "this will be a good year for us in terms of sales." However, the CEO only has the first nine months of sales data to rely. Thus, the CEO is assuming that the final three months of the year will not be so bad as to cause the overall sales figures to drop below prior years. After all, if the company sold nothing in the final three months of the year, then the overall sales for the year would very likely be lower than prior years.

To strengthen the argument, we need to find an answer choice that bolsters the CEO's assumption. In other words, we want an answer choice that suggests the final three months of sales will be good enough to keep the overall sales for the year higher than prior years. This is our prephrase.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice A exactly fits the prephrase. If the company "typically" has its highest monthly sales during the last three months of the year, then there is an additional reason to think the same will occur this year, and the CEO's expectation of a good year is somewhat more likely to be met.

Answer choice (B): Even if the quality of the products the company sells has always been considered to be relatively, we need to know that the company will sell enough products in the final three months of the year to exceed prior years' overall sales. The quality of products does nothing to help assure us that the final three months of this year's sales are likely to be strong enough to meet that expectation.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice has no impact on the argument. The CEO's motive to highlight good news does not give us any reason one way or the other to expect that the final three months of this year's sales will be good (or bad).

Answer choice (D): This answer choice has no impact on the argument. Because on the LSAT we can never be sure that the future will match the past, the unusual effectiveness of the advertising campaign in the first nine months of the year is not good reason to expect that it will be similarly effective in the final three months of the year. Moreover, even if the advertising campaign proved to be effective in those final three months, if the company normally makes no sales in the final three months, even a slight boost from the advertising campaign might not be enough to predict that this year's overall sales would constitute a "good year."

Answer choice (E): This answer choice has no impact on the argument. The performance of other companies during the preceding nine months tells us nothing about whether this particular company (or even those other comparable companies) will perform well in terms of sales in the final three months of the year.

[Tajadas]

I chose D instead of A, oddly enough, because of the justification used to eliminate D, that is, past history is not a predictor of future results. Why is it okay to predict that the future will match the past when comparing this year's last 3 months of sales to other years' last 3 months of sales (A), but not the first 9 months of sales under the new ad campaign to the last 3 months of the new ad campaign (D)?

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer D is that there is too much we don't know. Will the campaign continue to be effective? Has it been consistently effective in the first 9 months, or did it perhaps just give us a big boost in sales in the first month or two and then drop off, so that our current monthly average is being artificially inflated by those early good months? What can we expect for the last three months of the year? After all, the average for the year is based on 12 months, not just 9.

What we need to strengthen this argument is some positive indicator that the last three months will be at least as good, if not better, than the 9 months so far. Answer D doesn't look forward, but back, and we need to look forward if we want to feel as confident as the CEO does. Answer A looks forward for us by talking about the last three months of the year, and even though it is based on past results it is still a hopeful indicator for things to come. It's not proof - this year could be an unusual one when sales in the last quarter are atypically low - but it is at least a good sign for things to come to finish out the year with a high average.

In short, answer D only looks to the past, but answer A uses info about the past to help us make a reasonable prediction for the future.

[LawSchoolDream]

Hi, I chose D for the very same reasonings you're providing. I chose it because it said there's a new campaign at start of the year that has demonstrated to increase revenue. Then in comparison to A I also felt that A stating 3 months USUALLY has shown in the past to indicate - WHAT IF something changes this year to drown the sales? Like bad news about company etc.. The two answers seem perfectly equivalent in terms of reasons to select them and for reasons to cross them out. Can you please expand on this further? I read the entire thread but it seems like the PRO and CON are like identical for both answers.

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi!

Ok so the CEO here is talking about a monthly average. Now because we're talking in terms of average, only having 9 months worth of data doesn't tell us what the average sales numbers per month will look like at the end of the year because what if, for example, they don't sell anything those last three months. That would substantially bring the average down.

When we find a flaw in the author's argument in strengthen questions, our best bet is to try to fix it as much as we can. Answer Choice A tells us that, not only, will they have sales but they're likely going to be very high numbers as well so they will not bring the average down.

The problem with answer choice D is that we have to make too many assumptions for it to be helpful. The campaign might have worked the first few months but who's to say it will continue to do so, who's to say that everyone that saw that campaign hadn't already purchased and we've exhausted that avenue. Now yes, in both A and D you can see that we're making assumptions but out of the two A addresses a flaw in the author's argument and is oriented in what could happen on the next few months where as D requires more assumptions than A in order to get it to be helpful.

[Aurora_35]

But isn't A a flaw in and of itself? We can't predict or even assume production success based on past performance.

On the other hand, because the argument states "I feel confident that this will be a good year for us in terms of sales", wouldn't the answer also remove the idea of an alternate reason for the first 9 months, as to ensure that the last 3 months will continue successfully?

I chose (E) because it states that several other companies who sell similar items also reported higher than average sales , which eliminates the possibility that their nine months of success was due to the lack of success for competitors in the market.

I can't understand why (E) is not right.

Thanks!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Aurora!

Let's break down the implications of Answer Choice A:

So, based on the stimulus, the average of the first 9 months of this year's sales is $35 million. This is compared to the monthly average of sales for each of the last five years, which was $30 million. If Answer Choice A is true, and the last three months of the year tend to see the highest monthly sales, this would only serve to bring this year's average up more.

Previous Years:
Monthly Average Over a 12 Month Period: $30 Million

This Year:
Monthly Average for the First Nine Months of the Year: $35 Million
Monthly Average for the Final Three Months of the Year: $40 Million
Monthly Average Over a 12 Month Period: $36.25 Million

Answer Choice A strengthens this conclusion, because, if conversely, the last three months generally saw a significantly worse performance than the first nine months, this could drop the year's monthly average back down to $30 million, or even lower. Therefore, if we follow the trend of sales increasing in the last three months of the year, the CEO is more justified in concluding that this year will be a good year for sales, as the monthly average is already higher than usual, and is projected to get even higher.

Now, let's look at Answer Choice E: " Several other companies who sell products similar to those sold by the CEO's company have also reported that this year's monthly sales averages so far have been higher than previous years' averages."

Let's make this a real-world example. Let's say our company is McDonalds, and let's call the similar company mentioned in Answer Choice E Burger King. Just because Burger King is also reporting good sales, that doesn't really indicate much to us. Maybe Burger King launched a new menu item that is very popular, thus resulting in them having better sales this year when compared to previous years-- that has no bearing on McDonald's sales whatsoever. This simply doesn't provide us with enough information to strengthen our conclusion.

I hope this helps!

[Aurora_35]

Yes, I think that the answer choice was bothering me because it is the flaw of "what's true of the past doesn't necessarily hold true of the future," but because this is a strengthen and not a sufficient /necessary I suppose the answer works. I often get confused when a strengthen is somewhat weak because it almost seems like a stretch and breaks other flaw rules, but I get it now!

Thanks for explaining