Law School Discussion

Difficult LR question

caffeine and nicotine addict

  • ****
  • 408
  • Stay back - This is MY piss-pot!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - tchnav
    • View Profile
    • Third Tier Toilet
Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2004, 10:27:43 PM »
I agree with B. Now what's the f-ing credited answer?   ???

Dillon

  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2004, 10:46:24 PM »
I find the argument to be flawed but not classified as such in the text book sence, the question makes the inference to such in that the argument cannot be made without the assumption as if it were lacking, could not be assumed and must be added in order to close the loop.

YEH I would like to know the same F’n thing... Why would someone be using probs they don't have the ans to anyways??? lol

Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2004, 10:54:12 PM »
ok, the argument proceeds by saying pizzerias are the only kind restaurant to record names.  it then concludes that pizzerias utilize direct-mail more effectively than any other restaurant.

B doesnt work because the stimulus doesnt say that other restaurants never record names, it just says that only pizzerias do it routinely.  so to say direct mail requires recording "of at least some customers." would mean that any restaurant could utilize it, and the statement does nothing to get to the fact that pizzerias use it more efficiently.

id bet money that its E.  but someone please post the credited answer, hopefully i wont end up with my foot in my mouth.

AaronJ

Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2004, 11:03:10 PM »
I dont have the answer but I can garauntee you that B is wrong.  This is the conclusion:

Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants

B only says that some restaraunts use direct-mail marketing that requires names, addresses, etc.

Well big deal.  All of those 'some' resteraunts could be pizzarias for all we know and that may have nothing to do with how effectively the direct-mail market anyway.  

What we need to know is why pizzaries are more effective at direct-mail marketing then anybody else.  We need an answer that ensures that it is not possible for other resteraunts not doing what only the pizzaria does (recording names, etc.) to be more effective at direct-mail marketing.

No where other then in the conclusion is the concept of effective direct-mail marketing discussed.  No where.

In order for the conclustion to be a valid inference we need to somehow exclude others who are not pizzarias and hence do not record names, etc. from being better direct-mail marketers.

E does just that.

btw-effectiveness, efficiency.  same diff

Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2004, 11:07:11 PM »

btw-effectiveness, efficiency.  same diff

oops, didnt mean to say efficiency. its just a typo, replace it with effectively

AaronJ

Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2004, 11:08:48 PM »

btw-effectiveness, efficiency.  same diff

oops, didnt mean to say efficiency. its just a typo, replace it with effectively

I didnt mean you.  Someone else called me on it.

Hocine

  • ****
  • 336
    • View Profile
Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2004, 11:09:15 PM »
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 

or

-- 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?
Quote

Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2004, 12:04:09 AM »
Oops, sorry for taking so long. I hate when other people do that. Anyway, credited answer is E. Here's the Kaplan explanation:

Assumption questions will always introduce a new,
unsupported idea in the conclusion. The right
answer choice will connect that new idea to the
terms in the evidence.
The conclusion of this argument is neatly set off
with the keyword “therefore”. We see that pizzerias
use direct-mail more effectively than other
restaurants. Why? The evidence tells us they are
good at collecting and sorting consumer
information. So we predict that the central
assumption is going to link using direct mail
effectively and collecting consumer information.
And, in fact, (E) links these ideas perfectly.
(A)—it’s not important whether restaurants other
than pizzerias are easily able to collect this
information; the only thing that matters is whether
actually collecting it makes restaurants more
effective users of direct mail.
(B) misses the scope by talking about what using
direct mail “requires,” rather than whether the
customer information is related to using direct mail
more effectively than other restaurants.
(C) fails to address the conclusion at all by only
focusing on the evidence.
(D)—the author says that pizzerias collect
consumer information more often than any other
restaurants, but she never discusses restaurants
that cannot collect such information at all, and is
therefore out of scope.

Hocine

  • ****
  • 336
    • View Profile
Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2004, 12:15:44 AM »
I think a lot of the wrong answers were due to people confusing this (an assumption question) with a strengthen question...

An assumption is something that 1) must be true for the argument to follow logically, and 2), if negatad, will DESTROY the argument.

You can use the second part to help you solve these more easily: just negate your answer choice, insert it as a premise, and see if the argument falls apart.  The only one that destroyed the argument when it was negated was E.. as explained here.


Thanks for the problem, got any more for us? :)

Re: Difficult LR question
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2004, 12:35:45 AM »
I initially checked E and didn't give it a second thought. Going back over the questions though (before checking answers), it seemed like E was worded a bit too strongly. The "all" in E threw me off. The stimulus only says pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do OTHER restaurants -- technically, all this means that there are at least SOME restaurants that pizzerias do better than. To say that they do it better than all restaurants isn't a valid deduction. I thought I'd spotted a subtle trap they'd laid, but then when I turned to the other answer choices, none of them jumped out as correct either.

I don't think this is a very good question. The LSAT trains you to think about the technical meanings of words, to over-analyze and make sure everything in an argument is watertight, but then they occasionally get sloppy with language themselves. I suppose their instructions to choose the "best answer" among the choices covers them, but still...