Q10 - Advertisers are often criticized

[goriano]

Can someone explain why (A) doesn't strengthen the argument?

[timmydoeslsat]

This is due to the fact that the ad companies could be switching to those other magazines for the idea of making money. Their products could be geared towards families and to continue making money, they had to go with other family magazines.

To strengthen this idea of causation from the correlation presented, we want to exclude other possible causes. And the most obvious one to me is the idea of finances causing them to switch.

Answer choice C gives us the ability to exclude 1 possible explanation for the switch.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great point Timmy! Exactly right.

I agree that we're looking for an alternative cause for the advertisers to switch. Sometimes I think it's useful to think of these causation questions as explanations. For example, "the reason why something strange happened is _____ ." I'm not sure there's really a distinction between "explanations" and "causation" but often I don't see language cues with arguments offering explanations. Additionally, severing the correlation doesn't seem to appear as a correct answer choice on arguments that offer explanations. Whereas with causation, answer choices that are correct will often present an instance of having the presumed cause without the presumed effect, or vice-versa.

Back to the example at hand, notice they even brought up the possible alternative explanation (financial considerations) in the stimulus; "there is evidence ... some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations." They're trying to be nice, and tip you off to the possible alternative explanation for why the advertisers would switch publications. Answer choice (C) suggests that the advertisers ignored their financial considerations, thus supporting the explanation that the advertisers switched for moral considerations.

Lets look at the incorrect answer choices:

(A) doesn't explain why (as Timmy pointed out)! Maybe their financial considerations would prompt them to advertise in a family newspaper. We just don't know why they would want to stay with a family newspaper.
(B) fails to explain why, just like answer choice (A).
(D) undermines the argument by providing a financial consideration to be aware of.
(E) undermines the argument by providing a financial consideration to be aware of.

Hope that helps!

[soyeonjeon]

English is not my first language.
And I chose A because of "by moral as well as financial consideration." I interpreted this to mean that some advertisers are motivated equally by those two and not just financial gains.

I also saw A as strengthening the causal relationship by presenting the original causal relationship, thereby reinforcing it. I assumed that family newspapers imply moral consideration.

Can someone please help me understand why C is better than A?

According to my logic, it seems that they both could be correct.

Thanks for your help.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi soyeonjeon, I totally understand that identifying the Argument Core here is pretty challenging. That said this is a really common argument structure on Strengthen/Weaken questions and you probably want to start training yourself to be looking out for it on these question types.

Evidence (observation) ---> Conclusion (explanation)

The observation is the switch made by the advertisers. The explanation is that this was for based on moral considerations. The part about advertisers being motivated by both moral as well as financial considerations can be distracting, but it is actually the LSATs way of being nice and hinting at a possible alternative explanation.

The problem with answer choice (A) is that it doesn't shed light on why the advertisers switched to the other family newspapers--maybe this just makes economic sense for them. Suppose you are advertising a product geared at families. You might switch to the other family newspapers because staying would be a financial disaster!

Answer choice (C) rules out the possibility that the advertisers switched for financial considerations and so strengthens the explanation that it was for moral considerations.

*** to strengthen the argument structure always rule out alternative explanations. to weaken this argument structure always provide an alternative explanation.

[MeenaV936]

The stimulus says they consider both moral AND financial reasons. Doesn't C violate the stimulus by totally eliminating financial considerations from the picture?

The observation is the switch made by the advertisers. The explanation is that this was for based on moral considerations. The part about advertisers being motivated by both moral as well as financial considerations can be distracting, but it is actually the LSATs way of being nice and hinting at a possible alternative explanation.

[ohthatpatrick]

The first sentence is what happens when advertisers are motivated by financial considerations: they unscrupulously (un-morally) manipulate people's tastes and wants [in order to drive up sales of their product].

When the 2nd sentence says, "There's evidence, though, that some advertisers are motivated by moral considerations as well", it's saying "as well as the financial considerations that are obvious".

If I said:
"Men are often criticized for their unwavering fixation on how a woman dresses and looks. There is evidence, however, that some men are motivated by considerations of intelligence as well as attractiveness."

That's saying, "in addition to the factor we all know about (attractiveness), men are ALSO sometimes motivated by the factor of intelligence."

If Johnny rejected Megan, who was amazingly attractive but not very bright, that would be strong evidence that men sometimes are motivated by intelligence.

If Johnny rejected Kathy, who was not very attractive and not very bright, it wouldn't be clear whether that was evidence that men are sometimes motivated by intelligence (because it could just be that Johnny was motivated by Kathy's lack of attractiveness).

(C) strengthens the argument by getting us to think, "Clearly, the advertisers must have been concerned morally, because they went against their OTHER consideration (financial success) in pulling ads from this publication."

If you're selecting a law school and some of the primary considerations are "keeping debt as low as possible" + "getting the best education possible", that doesn't mean that the school you pick will have the lowest debt and the best education.

It means that you will have factored both things into your decision. Maybe one factor is more important than the other. Maybe a certain university would go against your normal feelings on debt but offer such a quality education that you go with it anyway (revealing to us that "quality of education" must have been your dominant motivating factor in going there).

Hope this helps.