PT60.S3.Q02 - a study found that consumers

Tina ChoTina Cho Free Trial Member
edited September 2016 in Logical Reasoning 442 karma
Hi,

I'm not sure why A is wrong...if the number of consumer increased between before the ad. is aired and after the ad. is aired, wouldn't that explain the ad. is actually effective?
Or...I thought it shows evidence of what is discussed in the stimulus.
Or is it wrong because it just kind of reapeating what is discussed in the argument and the increasement could be a coincedence?

Thank you
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-02/

Comments

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    It's a probability thing. Not a total # of shoppers in line. Regardless of whether it was 5 people or 50, after the advertisement (for 40 min) the percentage of "advertised product buyers" increased. After all this type of study doesn't seem like you could control for erratic grocery store traffic.
  • Tina ChoTina Cho Free Trial Member
    442 karma
    Sorry but I don't understand your explanation...could you elaborate it a bit? :( @nye8870
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    Ok. Lets plug in some numbers to better see what happens in ac-A. During the study, for most advertisements (lets say 6 out of 10 ads) more people (50) went through the checkout lines after they aired than (25) before they were aired. What do these numbers tell us about the effectiveness of the advertisements? Did any of those people even buy the advertised products? We don’t know. These numbers only refer to how many people went thru the line.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @"Tina Cho"
  • Tina ChoTina Cho Free Trial Member
    442 karma
    @nye8870 thanks, so, let me double check... it could be conincedence, could be not because of the ad...is that what you mean?
  • Tina ChoTina Cho Free Trial Member
    442 karma
    Btw, what is this "for" mean? ("for" in "for most advertisements") I thought this shows "reason" so same as "due to"...so that's why I thought the increase is due to the ad, because of the ad, there was increase...sorry it's kind of not LSAT question, but I'm kind of having trouble to see how this "for" plays in the argument :(
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @"Tina Cho" said:
    it could be conincedence
    Yes the total number of shopping line occupants is coincidental (like a snapshot in time). They took two snapshots 1. before ad aired - less people bought product to be advertised. 2. Within 40 min of airing ad for said product - more people bought product.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @nye8870 said:
    for most advertisements
    "In regards to" most advertisements. "Concerning" most advertisements.
  • Tina ChoTina Cho Free Trial Member
    442 karma
    thanks @nye8870 now i see why its wrong!
Sign In or Register to comment.