#13 - Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

The author suggests that using in-store displays is a superior way to boost sales of merchandise than the traditional direct-mail advertising. The evidence she uses to substantiate her claim is that two-thirds of shoppers' buying decisions are made on the spot at the store. Does that guarantee that in-store displays represent a better marketing tactic? Only if we assume that shoppers (1) notice the in-store displays; (2) aren't put off or distracted by them; and (3) make a decision consistent with the message conveyed by the displays. What if the displays are so bad that people make the conscious choice to stay away from purchasing the advertised products? Or so inconspicuous that nobody notices them in the first place? The author's recommendation would certainly not be as useful.

By noticing the missing link between buying decisions and in-store displays, you should look for a Supporter Assumption that connects the two.

Answer choice (A): The argument does not depend on the assumption that companies are increasingly using in-store displays. The assumption is only that they work to boost sales. The frequency with which in-store displays are used is irrelevant to this conclusion, as it is merely a consequence of their presumed efficacy.

Answer choice (B): The historical efficacy of direct-mail advertising is irrelevant to a conclusion about what companies should do in the future. Furthermore, the conclusion is based on the explicit premise that customers no longer pay attention to direct-mail advertising. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): While this answer choice strengthens the argument by connecting in-store displays to buying decisions made on the spot, the conclusion does not rely on the effectiveness of such displays on this vis-→-vis other buying decisions. This answer choice simply goes too far. Try the Assumption Negation technique: what if in-store displays are just as likely (or even more likely) to influence other buying decisions than to influence decisions made on the spot? This would not weaken the conclusion, as long as the displays are still more effective in influencing decisions made on the spot relative to direct-mail advertising. Since the logical opposite of answer choice (C) does not necessarily weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is not essential to the conclusion and is therefore incorrect.

Beware of well-written decoy answers that strengthen the conclusion of an Assumption question but do not represent an element necessary for that conclusion to be true.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If in-store displays did not increase the likelihood that customers will decide to buy merchandise on the spot, the author's recommendation would be worthless. Therefore, answer choice (D) provides an element necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice does the exact opposite of what is needed and weakens the author's recommendation by suggesting that shoppers may not even pay attention to in-store displays.

[Sdaoud17]

Hi,

I believe the explanation of Answer C online is incorrect when it said "Try the Assumption Negation technique: what if in-store displays are just as likely (or even more likely) to influence other buying decisions than to influence decisions made on the spot?" I thought the logical opposite of More likely is less likely .

Can you explain ? thank you

[Sdaoud17]

Also is the Logical opposite for Answer D is Changing the "Will" to "Willnot " and is it as equal as if you only changed increase to "Not increase".

Thank you

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Good questions. In response to the first, the logical opposite of "more likely" is "not more likely." In negating this choice, you are correct--you should be thinking about the possibility of equal likelihood, or even less likelihood.

The negated version of answer choice D is that eye-catching displays do not necessarily increase the likelihood that customers will buy on the spot.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[Sdaoud17]

Thank you Its clear now

[bk1111]

I still cannot come up with a logical explanation for eliminating C? Negated, the answer choice says "In-store displays are no more likely to influence buying decisions made on the spot at the store than to influence other buying decisions." If it is no more likely than, say, coupon-clipping, doesn't that weaken the conclusion that in-store displays will boost sales?

I understand that D is the correct answer choice and I selected that, but I don't understand why C is wrong...

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like you are making the wrong comparison in your analysis, bk1111. Answer C doesn't compare in-store displays to coupons, but rather compares the effect of an in-store display on an on-the-spot decision to that same in-store display's effect on some other decision, perhaps made after the customer leaves the store. That looks something like "I was in the store earlier and saw a display about a new doohickey, and now that I think about it, I want that doohickey, so I will go back to the store and make that purchase now." This comparison isn't relevant to the argument, as it doesn't matter if the in-store display also influences other decisions. It only matters whether it influences those on-the-spot decisions!

Put another way, the issue is whether the alleged cause brings about the purported effect. Additional effects brought about by that cause don't matter.