#20 - The layouts of supermarkets are not accidental: they

[Dave Killoran]

Anyway, well thought out plans can be inferred from the first sentence, since they are not accidental. And it continues explaining the plan. These plans fail because they alienate and cause shoppers to dislike! The wording "can" matches both the answer choice and what's in the stimulus!

I'll address the question response part here. Ok, here are two parts to answer choice (C):

• 1. "Even well-thought-out plans..."
  
  Ok, you have correctly identified that supermarket layouts are planned ("Anyway, well thought out plans can be inferred from the first sentence"). It doesn't precisely say they are well-thought out (because "not accidental" and "part of a plan" isn't identical to "well-thought out"), but I'll let that pass and say they are close enough to be the same. So, the problem isn't here.
  
  
  2. "...can fail."
  
  Where's the "failure?" Just because some consumers don't like it? No, that doesn't equate to failure, and to draw that conclusion is to engage in a part-to-whole fallacy (namely that because part of the plan didn't go perfectly that the whole plan is bad). It's just as likely that despite the inconvenience, the overall sales of the supermarkets are higher because of the plan, and that could be seen as an overall success by the supermarket (which is in fact the case in real life).

When you and I spoke on the phone and looked at some questions, this "partially true but not entirely true" discussion came up. You are prone to want to see answer as being valid when they actually fail the Fact Test, and this has been consistently causing you issues. I think here you just let that point get away from you, but it's not irretrievable—you can overcome it!

[adlindsey]

Thank you all for all the help, patience, and time!

[nlittle]

I chose an answer that was too specific and made a rogue assertion (B). I had understood that the stimulus mentioned that the companies would alienate their customers without stating that it was bad for business (businesses did this intentionally), but the true problem was that I ruled out the correct answer by mistake and was left choosing one that I didn't like.

The comments on here seem to imply that this was main point question, but the answer key actually says its MBT. Technically, I think the book is telling us this because the correct answer is something that actually has to be true:

The correct answer SEEMED too broad, but it actually was NOT. Why? Because E says what "can" happen and the passage was an example of when it does happen, so it must be true that it "can" happen.

As stated above, B is not required to be true based on the premises. Even if this were a main point question, I think our prephrases would look something like "intentionally inconvenient supermarket designs are the leading cause of customers' disliking supermarkets" which would not opine on what is good for business.

Thanks,

Nick

[Eric Ockert]

Hey Nick

This is definitely a Must Be True question. Main Point questions ask you to identify something the author already concluded in the argument in the stimulus. Must Be True questions look for you to identify which new statement in the answer choices can be proven from what was already said in the stimulus. Here, the question stem is not asking for what the author concluded; rather, it is asking for what the stimulus illustrates. That speaks much more in terms of Must Be True.

You are right about (B). Even though the customers may be "alienated" by these tactics and find inconvenience a major reason to dislike supermarkets, we still don't know if these feelings are translating into negative business consequences for the supermarkets. It's very possible that they are. However, we cannot prove that they are.

Hope that clarifies a bit!

[Alexis]

Hi,

Could someone please explain how we are able to determine that this must be true question is a principle type question?

Thanks!
Alexis

[Dave Killoran]

Hi,

Could someone please explain how we are able to determine that this must be true question is a principle type question?

Thanks!
Alexis

Hi Alexis,

It's the use of the word "proposition" in the question stem. That word is synonymous with "principle," and implies a broader idea is at play.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[cacao825]

Just a quick question, how can the part in the stimulus that says it is not accidental and that it makes people walk to the rear of the market be inferred as "manipulating" as in the correct answer E? While taking the test, I disregarded immediately answer E because I couldn't infer from the passage that there was actual "manipulation". I understand manipulation to mean "making someone do something without their intention" but I don't know how this can be implied from the passage. HELP

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

The stimulus describes how supermarkets make shoppers do something they don't intend to do. Shoppers intend to come in for bread. They don't intend to be tempted by a wide array of other foods. That's the manipulation. It doesn't have to be successful to be manipulation.

My classic example of manipulation is when a football team lines up to "go for it" on 4th down instead of kicking the ball away. Frequently it's just a manipulation. The offense is trying to manipulate the defense into going offsides by making certain noises or movements that suggest that they are going to hike the ball. The defense doesn't intend to go offsides, and more often than not the manipulation isn't successful. But it's still a manipulation.

Here the fact that the store is designed to encourage people to do something (buy an item) they didn't intend is what makes it a manipulation. If people fall for it or not, the action was still manipulative. We don't need to know the success rate to be able to say that the store was engaging in manipulative behavior.

Hope that helps

[mainebaltazar]

Hi,

So I made the same mistake as comments above by selecting (B).

Here's my thought process:

- I was choosing between B, C, and E.
- In my evaluation of B, I noted that it is true in general that alienation of customers can be bad for business but that the stimulus did not tell me this; rather, it's a belief that just generally makes sense to me but not one that I can prove using the stimulus. So in hindsight, I see that I should've listened to this concern in my head, but I kept it as a contender for the right answer because (1) it is technically true and (2) it was very specific to the stimulus compared to my other options. I think my mind feels trained to be concerned about answer choices that aren't exactly specific to the stimulus.
- C and E sounded really similar. I had issues with both in that they felt very broad. I saw merit in E because I recognized the supermarket's plan as manipulation, but I thought that it would be a mistake to infer something so general from such a specific scenario so I eliminated it for that reason. Even though C was also broad, I was a little more comfortable with it than E because it at least used similar language to the stimulus ("plan") and showed how intent in a plan can still fail to translate in the effect of the plan. After reading through the thread, I understand that there was no failure of the plan because business might not necessarily have been negatively impacted just because people don't like supermarkets. This was a thought I had but ignored because I was so averse to choosing an answer that felt too broad.

All that being said, how do we distinguish when it is okay to select a broad answer? Are there specific types of questions we should look out for that signal that we should look for a broad answer? I always feel like I'm going to be penalized for making an assumption about concepts in general instead of evaluating particular scenarios (in this case, customers).

Please also let me know if there is something in my thought process that is wrong, misguided, or detrimental to my ability to select the right answer so I can correct it for future questions!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi mainebaltazar,

Great questions here! Broad statements can be fine as long as they fit the requirements of the question. This is a principle question, which tend to have more abstract and broad statements than typical questions. But again, a broad statement can be fine in any question type as long as it meets the requirements of that question. In this case, it's a MBT question, so we are looking for something that has to be true based on the facts in the stimulus.

Hope that helps!