The question stem says, which of the following most accurately describes the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?

So this is a main conclusion question.

Let's identify the line that we think is the main conclusion, make sure we understand it,

and then look for an answer that best restates that line.

So, maybe when you go shopping, you discover some amazing item or some amazing discount, and then you feel lucky.

Apparently, this is the most enjoyable emotional experience.

Retailers use this fact, so use the fact that this is the most emotional experience, to their advantage.

And so, maybe they use it to their advantage by, like, putting in random discounts,

or maybe, like, arranging their store in such a way that there's some great item that just seems to sneak up on you as you're walking through the aisle.

That's my understanding of using this fact to their advantage.

But, and so here we have a shift in the direction of the argument,

but too often, they resort, so retailers resort, to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares.

Now this sentence right here, and to be more precise, the second half of this sentence,

so everything after the comma here, should strike us as a potential conclusion.

Why? Because of this phrase here, too often.

If you say that something is happening too often, that involves an opinion about what is happening.

That is a judgment that whatever is occurring is happening more than it should be occurring.

And when you have a line that is expressing a value judgment, an opinion about something,

that's very likely to be the conclusion.

So when I read the rest of this stimulus, I'm thinking,

is the author giving me a reason to think that retailers are using advertised price cuts to promote their wares more than they should be?

Because if I get, in the rest of the stimulus, a reason that this is happening too often,

then that would confirm for me that the line too often is a conclusion.

So let's keep reading here.

Promotions of this sort, so promotions of advertised price cuts to promote wares,

they might make bargain-minded consumers feel lucky,

but they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty.

So these are negative things about advertised price cuts.

They hurt profit margin, and they undermine customer loyalty,

and because advertised price cuts do these things that are bad,

the author believes retailers are doing price cuts too often.

Or to be more precise, they're using price cuts to promote wares too often.

So the first half of the last sentence here,

promotions might make bargain-minded consumers feel lucky,

that's just a concession point.

The author there is acknowledging, yes, they do make consumers feel lucky,

which is the most enjoyable experience for consumers,

but using price cuts to promote wares has negative qualities.

It has negative consequences.

And that is why I believe it is happening too often.

So the conclusion of the argument is,

too often, retailers resort to using price cuts to promote their wares.

That conclusion is being supported by the premise,

which is the very last half of the last sentence.

They cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty.

That is a premise designed to support the conclusion.

The first sentence is context,

and the part from the word promotions to lucky here is a concession.

Now by the way, if any part of you thought that the line,

they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty, was a conclusion,

you have to make sure that you constantly ask yourself,

what is the support for the conclusion?

So if you're thinking the last part is the conclusion,

you'd have to ask the author,

well, why do you believe that these advertised price cuts

are hurting profit margins and undermining customer loyalty?

You have to be able to point to another line that is offered as proof of that last part.

And you just can't do that.

The author doesn't tell us how we should know

that the profit margins are being cut or that they undermine customer loyalty.

The author is just asserting these as facts.

This is something that does happen, and I'm not telling you why.

But because these happen, I believe that proves something else.

So we're looking for the main conclusion.

That means I'm looking for something that says,

retailers too often resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares.

And I don't mean that it has to use the exact same words,

but it has to have the same meaning.

So let's see.

A says feeling lucky is the most enjoyable emotional experience.

which is not the conclusion.

That is just context.

Next is B, which says,

But that's also just part of the context here.

Retailers use this fact to their advantage.

That's true, but then the author is making an argument

about how that's happening too often.

Next is answer choice C.

And so far, this is the only one that seems to have a match

to the idea of something happening too often.

If something is happening too often,

another way to say that is it's being overused.

So overused is close enough to happening too often,

and also means of gaining retail sales is close to promoting their wares.

What else are they doing besides trying to get sales

when they are promoting their wares?

So C is almost certainly going to be the correct answer here.

What about D?

produces profit margins and undermines customer loyalty.

That's just a match to the premise,

the second half of the last sentence.

And finally, E says making consumers feel lucky

Now, this is not the correct answer because

it is not a paraphrase of the line

too often they resort to using price cuts to promote their wares.

But I think answer choice E might be tempting to a lot of people.

And if you are tempted by E,

you have to make sure you separate the idea

of trying to draw an inference from the stimulus

with identifying the specific line that is the conclusion of the argument.

99% of the time when we're being asked to identify a conclusion,

the conclusion is matching up to a specific line.

The conclusion is not like the gist of the stimulus.

It's not some recap or inference that you make

when you put everything together.

That's not what the conclusion of the argument is.

So if you're attracted to E,

I'm pretty sure you probably didn't pick E

thinking that there was some specific line that was a conclusion.

Or if you did, there was some misinterpretation.

But probably what happened was

you got the general understanding that the author

didn't think the retailers were doing something wise

and then you weren't precise enough

about the specific complaint that the author had.

So you didn't recognize that the author's complaint

was specifically about using advertised price cuts

and instead thought that the complaint the author had

was just about generally making consumers feel lucky

and how that wasn't a good thing.

But E is not what the author said in the conclusion.

In fact, E actually is not something

that is a proper inference that you can draw from the stimulus

even though you might think it is

and that may have been why it was tempting.

What E is saying is that

the strategy of making people feel lucky

is probably not going to be successful.

But the author's complaint wasn't about

the fact that it made people feel lucky.

The author's complaint was about the fact that

these price cuts hurt profit margins

and undermine customer loyalty.

So if you could make customers feel lucky

without doing advertised price cuts,

then the author might be all for that.

It's just that this specific technique

has certain disadvantages

and that's why the author thinks

the advertised price cuts shouldn't be happening as much.

So C is the correct answer here

and it's the only one that comes even close to the line

that says something happening is too often.