"Surprising" Phenomenon
Even though the summer is usually the best for soft-drink sales and Foamy Soda lowered its prices, sales of Foamy Soda dropped during the summer months.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that does not help to explain why sales of Foamy Soda decreased in the summer, even though the company lowered its prices and the summer months are usually the best for soft-drink sales.
A
The soft-drink industry as a whole experienced depressed sales during the summer months.
This contributes to reconciling the discrepancy because Foamy Soda’s low sales may be a result of an industry-wide decrease in demand. It could be that consumers just did not want as much soda this summer, regardless of the brand.
B
Foamy Soda’s competitors lowered their prices even more drastically during the summer months.
This contributes to reconciling the discrepancy. If Foamy Soda’s competitors lowered their prices more than Foamy Soda did, consumers may have decided to go with the more heavily discounted options.
C
Because of an increase in the price of sweeteners, the production costs of Foamy Soda rose during the summer months.
This does not contribute to reconciling the discrepancy. An increase in production costs does not explain why sales decreased, especially since Foamy Soda lowered its prices.
D
A strike at Foamy Soda’s main plant forced production cutbacks that resulted in many stores not receiving their normal shipments during the summer months.
The stores not receiving their normal shipments, and thus not being able to sell Foamy Soda as they usually do, could explain why sales of the product decreased during the summer months.
E
The weather during the summer months was unseasonably cool, decreasing the demand for soft drinks.
A decrease in demand for soft drinks could explain why Foamy Soda experienced a decrease in sales, even with lower prices.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people need not fear that the tourism industry will harm the seaside environment. This is backed up by a long chain of support. First, people in the tourism industry are aware that overdevelopment of the seaside harms the environment. They also know that overdevelopment deters tourists, which harms their industry. Finally, we’re told that people in the tourism industry wouldn’t knowingly harm their own industry.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a broad conclusion that the tourism industry isn’t a risk to the seaside environment, but the offered support only addresses knowing harm through overdevelopment. The author doesn’t give us any reason to believe that the tourism industry wouldn’t unknowingly harm the environment, or that they wouldn’t harm the environment in a way other than overdevelopment.
A
No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.
The author in fact does support this claim by explaining a mechanism: overdevelopment makes areas less attractive to tourists.
B
That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.
The author just doesn’t make any claims about whether something coexists with a problem. Specifically, the author doesn’t claim that the tourism industry never coexists with environmental damage.
C
The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.
The entire argument is phrased in general terms, talking about the entire tourism industry and all seaside areas. So, the author never focuses on just a few members of a group.
D
The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.
The author’s support only focuses on the possibility that the tourism industry would knowingly harm the environment to draw a general conclusion that they wouldn’t harm the environment at all. The author just doesn’t address the possibility of unintentional harm.
E
The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.
The argument never makes a jump from a state of affairs being likely to that state of affairs being inevitable. The entire argument is phrased in general and absolute terms, “likely” doesn’t come into it.