Do I correctly understand the argument and why, especially, the correct answer is correct?
(s)PT13 S4 Q9(/s) Admin note: PT14.S2.Q10?
Premise: Government bans outdoor advertising, outside of particular type.
Premise: A Gov Report states that every industry using outdoor advertising, not necessarily of the particular class, had a larger market share than others.
Conclusion: Gov’s actions would reduce the overall volume of business.
(A) WRONG - The merchants seem to be protesting the government’s actions, which suggest that they are worried about loss of business, which is a good reason for NOT restricting the use of outdoor advertising.
(B) Correct. Marketshare (P2) and volume of business (Con) are not the same. Nevertheless, this answer implies that the outdoor advertising increased advertiser’s market share in a manner that wouldn’t necessarily just change where Penglai consumers spend their money on that island. A small mental leap is required to see that if the market traffic isn’t just diverted at current levels then overall volume can be damaged, for which there is no support.
(C) Whether the survey is objective or not, the conclusion that the overall volume of business would be reduced isn’t warranted.
(D) Even if the market share was proportionate to the use of outdoor advertising, that doesn’t mean that the volume of business would change.
(E) We have no idea what the Penglai constitution says.
Admin note: edited title