PT66.S4.Q12 - Mail-order sales

emmorens

Hey all!

I got this question right almost immediately during timed, and during BR I changed it to C because I doubted myself.

I used to have a tendency to get rid of answer choices like A that use 'other' examples because I would immediately see them and think they were irrelevant. However, I am now beginning to notice myself improving at picking up on this subtle nuances in LR and just wanted to clarify if my reasons are correct for keeping it.

The reason I selected AC A is because it showed that at other companies when the cause isn't there (companies that don't offer free shipping), the effect isn't there (mail orders decreasing); therefore strengthening the causal link between these two factors which in turn strengthens our conclusion.

From a more broad perspective; I understand that everything in LR sort of depends on the situation, but generally when AC's refer to corroborating data (ie: using other - seemingly random - scenarios or situations to strengthen or weaken something) are they only relevant when they do something deliberate like that to strengthen the causal or correlative relationship? (Ie: by affirming that it's possible for something to happen because it happens somewhere else)

One last question: for AC C, I realize it is wrong because it reiterates something that we are trying to confirm. However, I was wondering if it would still be wrong even if it said something that didn't reiterate but just affirmed another correlation. (ie: 'the NUMBER of sales have increased since the policy change')

I guess what I'm asking is if an answer just affirms that another correlation happens, does this strengthen an argument (even a little?) my opinion would be know because we are trying to prove causation and what would a bunch of random correlations tell us, but please correct me if I'm wrong!

Sorry if anything was worded weirdly lol I was sort of figuring everything out in my head as I was typing.

Thanks for any help with this!

*Admin Note:** https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-4-question-12/

Ashley2018-1

Someone correct me if I am wrong!
Proposed causal relationship in stimulus: Cause-Offering unlimited free shipping Effect- increase in mail-order sales.
A.) No cause, no effect: no unlimited free shipping, no increase in mail-order sales (decrease)
B.) Who cares?
C.) Profits are not the same thing as sales
D.) I think this suggests the change in policy was caused by the company's need to compete with others, but it doesn't make it clear as to whether this increase in sales was a direct result of the change in policy
E.) Irrelevant