For consumers, the most enjoyable emotional experience garnered from shopping is feeling lucky. Retailers use this fact to their advantage, but Conclusion too often they resort to using advertised price cuts to promote their wares. Promotions of this sort might make bargain-minded consumers feel lucky, but Support they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty.
The first sentence tells us that for consumers, the most enjoyable emotional experience from shopping is feeling lucky. Retailers use this to their advantage. These two sentences are context. They set up the topic but aren't part of the author's reasoning.
The author's argument begins with the claim that retailers resort to advertised price cuts too often. The phrase "too often" is a value judgment. The author is saying that this is happening more than it should be. That's an opinion, which makes it a strong candidate for the conclusion.
The last sentence provides support for this judgment. The author concedes that advertised price cuts might make bargain-minded consumers feel lucky, but points out two negative consequences: they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty. These are the reasons the author thinks retailers are overusing advertised price cuts.
So the argument structure looks like this:
Context: Feeling lucky is the best shopping emotion, and retailers use this.
Conclusion: Retailers resort to advertised price cuts too often.
Concession: These promotions do make bargain-minded consumers feel lucky.
Premise: But they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty.
One way to confirm this reading: if you think the last part of the last sentence ("they cut into profit margins and undermine customer loyalty") is the conclusion, ask yourself what other line is offered to prove that claim. You won't find one. The author just asserts it as a fact. That tells you it's functioning as a premise, not a conclusion.
We're looking for the answer that restates the claim that retailers are resorting to advertised price cuts too often to promote their wares.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?
Feeling lucky is the most enjoyable emotional experience garnered from shopping.
This matches the first sentence, which is context. The author isn't trying to prove that feeling lucky is the most enjoyable shopping emotion. She simply states it as a fact and moves on to make an argument about how retailers respond to that fact.
Retailers take advantage of the fact that shoppers enjoy feeling lucky.
This also matches part of the context. "Retailers use this fact to their advantage" sets the stage, but the author's argument is about a specific way retailers do this (advertised price cuts) and why it's happening too much. (B) doesn't capture the "too often" judgment that is central to the conclusion.
Advertised price cuts are overused as a means of gaining retail sales.
"Overused" is another way of saying "used too often," and "as a means of gaining retail sales" captures "to promote their wares." This is the only answer that reflects the author's value judgment that something is happening more than it should be, which is the defining feature of the conclusion.
Using advertised price cuts to promote retail products reduces profit margins and undermines customer loyalty.
This is the premise. It describes the negative consequences of advertised price cuts, which is exactly the evidence the author uses to support her conclusion. If you thought this was the conclusion, ask yourself: what line in the stimulus is offered to prove that price cuts reduce profit margins and undermine customer loyalty? No line does. The author asserts this as a fact without support, which means it cannot be a conclusion.
Making consumers feel lucky is usually not a good formula for retail success.
This doesn't match any specific line in the stimulus. If you were drawn to (E), you probably got the general sense that the author was criticizing retailers but weren't precise enough about the author's specific complaint. The author isn't saying that making consumers feel lucky is a bad strategy. The author's complaint is specifically about advertised price cuts and their negative consequences. If retailers could make consumers feel lucky in other ways that don't cut into profit margins or undermine customer loyalty, then we don't know the author would object.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic