to the top

#25 - Some advertisers offer certain consumers home

James Finch
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 pm
Points: 676

Hi Amiru,

(D) breaks down because while we know the increased sales from the advertising is what is funding the free computers, we don't know that this is the only conceivable way for these advertisers to offer the computers for free. Maybe they could sell advertising space on the physical computer itself? Or maybe the advertising wouldn't have to be continuous, but only periodic or when a user opens an application. Since we don't what the actual threshold is to offer the computers for free, nor how much over that threshold the increased sales are, we don't know that we couldn't make that up with other methods.

(B) doesn't work for the same reasons as (D), even more so because it's scope is even broader than (D). "No advertiser" means even a company like Google would be excluded from offering computers free of charge if consumers never use them to browse the internet. But if Google gave away 100 inexpensive computers for free, costing them let's say $50,000, would they be able to afford it? They have billions of dollars in the bank, so it's likely they could. That's just an example, but if there is a possible example that could give away computers for free, (B) does not have to be true.

Hope this helps!
amiru77
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:14 pm
Points: 5

Thanks for the explanation! it helped a lot.
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 581

Hi. I couldn't choose between A vs B but went with B due to the stimulus statement, last few lines of stimulus: " the advertisers can afford to offer the computer for free because of the increases sales that result from this precise targeting....."

B) is saying that No internet usage then the advertisers cannot give away from a free computer. which is directly supported by the "The advertisers can afford to off the computer for free because of the increases sales" As In that if no information available exist then the advertisers cannot afford to give away free comp.

As in that, I understand A) can be correct ... "Increased sales afford free comp" but I was thinking prior to increases sales part to be influential, there must be information available enabling such. which makes B) to be more MUST BE TRUE than A)
lathlee
LSAT Destroyer
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:53 pm
Points: 581

In addition, the Test takers will not have a tool to prove A) whether some consumers who use a computer offered free of charge by advertisers for browsing the internet spend more money on purchases from those advertisers than they would if they did not use such a computer to browse the internet.... as in there never was explicitly given information that some consumers would do over another reference if a given a choice in the stimulus.
Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 2,457

The stimulus did not say that the advertisers can afford to give the computers away for free ONLY because of the increased sales, lathlee. Increased sales is not a necessary condition, but merely one that helps them. There could be other things that would help them afford it, as mentioned earlier in this thread. That's why B doesn't have to be true.

If it is true that increased sales directly resulting from the targeted advertisements are helping to pay for cost of giving away the computers, then it must be true that those consumers targeted by the ads are, in fact, contributing to increased sales. They have to be buying things that they otherwise would not have bought. Otherwise, there are no increased sale to help cover the costs! Answer A is implied in the use of the term "increased sales."
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
AM4747
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:06 pm
Points: 17

Hello,

I chose the correct answer for this question (A).

However, in choosing the correct answer, I was initially stuck between A and C. I ruled C out because of "little is any money". I reasoned that the stimulus suggests only a comparison (and therefore it could be the case that people already purchase a lot of the advertised brand, but now with the use of these free computers, they purchase even more). As such, then, the stimulus does not support little (or even a lot for that matter). In other words, A is must be true and C is could be true.

Is this the reason that C can be ruled out? Or is there any other reason?

Thanks
Jay Donnell
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:04 pm
Points: 141

Hi AM7474!

Congrats on making the right choice, on a number 25 no less! This one is tricky, and I want to help you get a little more clarity as to why C is not an acceptable answer.

In Most Strongly Supported questions such as this, the logical force of an answer is a major factor in its viability. Sometimes however, like in this case, even what seems at first like a very weak statement may be hiding an unsupported claim.

In answer choice C here, it speaks to the buying habits of individual consumers who are offered these free, ad-ridden computers, but then deviates to what would happen to their spending habits if they didn't use those computers to browse the internet. We know from the stimulus that targeted advertising is in fact productive as it leads to increase sales of those products, which in turn helps financially sponsor the free computer program, but we have no idea what would happen to those consumers if they were not using those targeted computers to browse the internet. It seems a reasonable idea that they would not spend as much money on those products if not exposed directly to the targeted advertisements in these personal browsers, but that doesn't equate to them spending 'little, if any' on those products.


I hope that was helpful!
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 pm
Points: 3,166

We might as well knock out (E) while we are at it.

First, a reminder that this is a Must/MSS question format, and thus you need an answer that can be proven by information found in the stimulus or as a direct result of a combination of information in the stimulus. The stimulus here contains only premises, and does not contain a conclusion.

In this stimulus, the only mention of browsing pattern information is the following: "As consumers use the computers to browse the Internet, information about their browsing patterns is sent to the advertisers..." so we know it is sent to advertisers, but is there any indication that consumers can opt-out? No, and without any proof sitting in the stimulus, there's no justification for selecting (E) as being proven in some way.

If anything, (E) might weakens the implied conclusion that this "free computer" approach is a good/economical idea for advertisers.
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore PodCast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/