Difficult LR question

[Hocine]

Well you have to pay attention to the specific wording of the conclusion.  That's where the battles are won and lost.

"...pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants."

This is a definitive statement, s/he's saying that pizzerias always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.


I can see how the language tripped you up.  In everyday conversation, that would have been understood to mean that "most pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants."  But on the LSAT, and as an attorney, we're going to have to be very very uptight and snobby about perfect usage of the english language.  If you say A is does something better than B, that means A always does it better than B.


I guess this is a "Hard" question, in that most people get it wrong.. but it's one of the types of questions that taking a prep course (I'm in my third week of princeton review) can really help with.

[zxcvbnm]

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

This is a definitive statement, s/he's saying that pizzerias always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

99.9% of the time, I'd agree with your intepretation of this. It certainly accords with how we use these terms in everyday language. Not on the LSAT though.

Pizzerias could actually be relatively poor utilizers of direct-mail marketing, but as long as there's at least a token number of restaurants that do it worse than them, then it's technically true that "pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants." It's like saying I play baseball better than other kids, or I'm taller than other people. Neither of those statements imply that I'm a better baseball player or taller than ALL people -- just some. If 20 kids on the baseball team are better than me, but I'm better than the very worst 4, then I can say I play baseball better than other kids.

This is my main beef with the question. If you really get down to the nitty gritty and analyze the wording, none of the answer choices are perfect. This certainly qualifies as over-analysis, but the LSAT trains you to think this way, and I've seen other questions where this type of confusion between some/all was intended as a trap (though none as subtle as this one would be if it actually *were* a trap).

[Hocine]

Well here we're trying to understand what the LSAT means by "other restaurants" in this situation.

The only clue we have is in the first sentence: "Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers."

For me, that seemed to have clearly defined "other restaurants" as all restaurants other than pizzerias.


Also, I would expect them to say "better than some other restaurants," if that is indeed what they meant.


I can see your point though..

[cascagrossa]

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

This is a definitive statement, s/he's saying that pizzerias always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

99.9% of the time, I'd agree with your intepretation of this. It certainly accords with how we use these terms in everyday language. Not on the LSAT though.

Pizzerias could actually be relatively poor utilizers of direct-mail marketing, but as long as there's at least a token number of restaurants that do it worse than them, then it's technically true that "pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants." It's like saying I play baseball better than other kids, or I'm taller than other people. Neither of those statements imply that I'm a better baseball player or taller than ALL people -- just some. If 20 kids on the baseball team are better than me, but I'm better than the very worst 4, then I can say I play baseball better than other kids.

This is my main beef with the question. If you really get down to the nitty gritty and analyze the wording, none of the answer choices are perfect. This certainly qualifies as over-analysis, but the LSAT trains you to think this way, and I've seen other questions where this type of confusion between some/all was intended as a trap (though none as subtle as this one would be if it actually *were* a trap).

hocine is correct.  the stimulus does say that pizzerias always utilize direct-mail more effectively than any other restaurant.  its a question of relative effectiveness, we arent asked anything about being effective in absolute terms, we just have the fact that pizzerias are more effective than any other restaurant.  whether or not that level of effectiveness is high or low in absolute terms is irrelevant.

i also disagree with your assessment of the question, it is worded very clearly and E is a definitive correct answer.  i dont see any grey area to argue about here.

[Dillon]

Thanks all... this has been very helpful for me.  I am only up to p.220 in LR bible, I looked over pp.248-9 before posting that... but obviously did not sink in.  I have been following the other threads too and have been getting a lot out of this...
thanks!

[superiorlobe]

I picked E.

[Dillon]

I picked E.

...LOL... a little late there X-LOBE! 

[gdmc2004]

what's the answer..I think its C, everything else is either out of scope, or too extreme.

[superiorlobe]

E is the answer. 

[AaronJ]

what's the answer..I think its C, everything else is either out of scope, or too extreme.

Dont become another Kaplan victim.  Get out while you still can.