I haven't read through the posts so I'm sorry if this post is redundant.
I'd say the answer is E
, but I can only be 90% sure, because I have 90% accuracy on arguments.
Anyway, here is an explanation of why A, B, C, & D are wrong, and why E is correct.
First I just want to share two pre-phrased assumptions (either of which, if assumed, would be a sufficient answer here).. it's a pretty safe bet that the answer choice will be one of these
-- having the raw "names, addresses, and menu selections" causes more efficient direct-mail marketing
-- being able to "identify regular, average, and infrequent customers" causes more efficient direct-mail marketing AND
only pizzerias can do this (the author never says that getting the names, etc is the ONLY way to ID customers, so you'd need BOTH of these (the AND
is bolded for a reason) to be assumed, if this was in fact the author's reasoning.
Now.. these are the two assumptions we're looking for.. if we can find this in any answer choice -- and sure enough we do, in E -- then we've found the right answer.
So.. that is the first step (pre-phrasing the answer).. now here's why E is correct and the others are incorrect:
A. Restaurants other than pizzerias cannot easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers.This is tempting at first, but when choice A on a question 21 is tempting, be very very careful for nasty tricks. What happens if we negate this? Does the argument fall apart? Only if WE assumie that being able to ID customers is what makes you more efficient. Who told you to go making extra assumptions? Sorry, can't choose this one.
B. For restaurants, utilizing direct-mail marketing requires the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.I don't think this is correct because the conclusion says "more effectively," but if choice B is assumed, then the other restaurants don't utilize direct marketing AT ALL, and so there can be no comparison of their effectiveness (is that even a word?).
C. For restaurants, the identification of regular, average, and infrequent customers generally involves recording the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.How does this really affect the conclusion? We already have a premise that states that other restaurants don't do this at all, and it leaves the door open for other methods. Don't choose this one.. please?
D. Utilizing direct-mail marketing is rarely beneficial for restaurants that cannot identify regular, average, and infrequent customers."Almost tricked me!" This is a tempting one too, but who said that other restaurants "cannot identify regular, average, and infrequent customers?" Even the author of the argument didn't go that far. If you simply add this (as a premise) to the author's argument, the argument still has a huge flaw: it hasn't been established that the pizzaria's method of identifying "regular, average, and infrequent customers" is the ONLY method.
E. Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants."Please let me choose this one!" What happens when we make this the third sentence in the paragraph? Does the conclusion follow logically? I think so. What happens when we negate it (negate an assumption and the argument will fall apart)? "Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers never utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants." Wow, that really tears the argument apart, doesn't it?