PT141.S2.Q15 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The consultant concludes that the advertising campaign was a bad idea. He supports this by saying that LRG’s sales are down and their new products are selling especially poorly.

The consultant give no support for his assumption that the ad campaign is responsible for LRG’s low sales, nor does he consider any alternative explanations. It’s possible that LRG’s industry is shrinking, that they have a new competitor, or that the new products are unpopular because they’re just bad quality.

It’s unclear whether the ad campaign was created by the “competing consultant.” Even if it was the competitor’s campaign and the consultant did assume this, (A) fails to point out that LRG’s low sales might have been caused by something other than the campaign.

The consultant fails to consider that LRG’s low sales might have been caused by something other than the ad campaign, like economic changes.

The consultant points out that LRG’s new products are selling especially poorly this year, but he never assumes that the new products should outsell older, more established products. Even if he did, (C) doesn’t address the fact that something else might have caused the low sales.

The consultant points out that new product sales are especially low, but he never makes any assumptions about why established product sales are higher. Instead, he assumes that low sales overall are due to the ineffective ad campaign.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. The consultant doesn’t make this mistake; his argument relies on causal logic, not conditional logic.

PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action