LSAT 127 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 127 - Section 3 - Question 06

December 2003

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:01

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT127 S3 Q06
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Analogy +An
A
0%
156
B
3%
155
C
0%
155
D
95%
165
E
1%
154
130
138
147
 +Easier 146.462 +SubsectionMedium

Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print version of a travel magazine and on that magazine’s website. We were unable to get any direct information about consumer response to the print ads. However, we found that consumer response to the ads on the website was much more limited than is typical for website ads. We concluded that consumer response to the print ads was probably below par as well.

Summarize Argument
The executive concludes that consumers’ response to a recent run of print ads in a magazine was probably below the average response to print ads. In support, the executive points out that the consumer response to digital ads on the magazine’s website was below the average response to digital ads.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The executive draws an analogy between two similar cases (print ads and digital ads) to justify drawing conclusions about one based on evidence from the other. This is how the executive comes to a conclusion about the response to the print ads based on response statistics from the digital ads.

A
bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon’s cause
The executive doesn’t make predictions based on the cause of a phenomenon. There’s no discussion at all about the “intensity” of whatever might have caused a poor response to the ads.
B
uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that kind
The executive doesn’t draw conclusions about a particular event based on the typical event of that kind. The executive’s conclusion about a particular case, print ads, is drawn from evidence from another particular case, digital ads, which is claimed to be analogous.
C
infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances
The executive doesn’t make any generalizations, and only ever discusses two specific instances—definitely not a large number.
D
uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable
The executive uses the case of digital ads, for which direct evidence of poor consumer response is available, to draw a conclusion that the consumer response was also poor for print ads. This is necessary because there’s no direct evidence about the print ads.
E
bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events
The executive doesn’t make any future predictions, instead only drawing a conclusion about one recent event based on an analogy to another recent event.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply