The advertising campaign for Roadwise auto insurance is notable for the variety of its commercials, which range from straightforward and informative to funny and offbeat. This is unusual in the advertising world, where companies typically strive for uniformity in advertising in order to establish a brand identity with their target demographic. But in this case variety is a smart approach, since purchasers of auto insurance are so demographically diverse.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes Roadwise auto insurance is smart to make commercials that are unusually varied in their tone. Why? Because people from many different demographics buy auto insurance.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes it’s a good idea for Roadwise to make commercials that appeal across its base of potential customers, rather than target a particular demographic. This means assuming the benefits of a wide campaign outweigh any disadvantages caused by an inconsistent tone. It also means assuming that demographically different customers will be attracted to different styles of advertisements, that they won’t be turned off by that difference in tone, and that this diversity will help Roadwise either attract new customers or maintain its existing ones from various demographics.

A
Advertising campaigns designed to target one demographic sometimes appeal to a wider group of people than expected.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests Roadwise might appeal to more customers than it expects by tailoring its advertisements to just one demographic.
B
Consistent efforts to establish a brand identity are critical for encouraging product interest and improving company recognition.
This weakens the argument. It implies Roadwise will suffer from poor interest and poor recognition since it isn’t consistently working to establish a brand identity.
C
Fewer people are influenced by auto insurance commercials than by commercials for other types of products.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply a company that makes diverse auto insurance commercials increases its chances of influencing potential customers.
D
Advertising campaigns that target one demographic often alienate people who are not part of the target demographic.
This supports Roadwise diversifying its advertisements. It suggests a diverse advertising campaign is less likely to turn off potential customers than a targeted one.
E
Efforts to influence a target demographic do not pay off when the content of the advertising campaign falls short.
This implies Roadwise must ensure its advertisements have strong content, not that a diverse campaign is a good idea. It does not imply the reverse—that any advertisement campaign with good content will succeed in influencing its target demographic.

10 comments

Mayor: Periodically an ice cream company will hold a free ice cream day as a promotion. Showing up may not cost you any money, but it sure does cost you time. We learn from this that when something valuable costs no money you get overconsumption and long lines. Currently, those who drive to work complain about the congestion they face in their rush-hour commutes. What is needed is a system for charging people for the use of roads during rush hour. Then rush hour congestion will abate.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
We need a system that charges people for using the roads during rush hour traffic. Why? Because when something valuable is free, overconsumption and long lines are the result. Just as showing up for free ice cream costs time, congestion during rush hour traffic costs time.

Identify Argument Part
The claim is a general statement used as support for the Mayor’s main conclusion.

A
It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim is not rejected in the Mayor’s argument.
B
It is a concession made to those who dispute an analogy drawn in the argument.
The analogy between ice cream and traffic is not being disputed.
C
It helps establish the importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as evidence for that conclusion.
The claim does not establish the importance of the Mayor’s main conclusion.
D
It is a general claim used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim does support the Mayor’s main conclusion.
E
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The claim is not the Mayor’s main conclusion.

11 comments

Economist: If minimum wage levels are low, employers have a greater incentive to hire more workers than to buy productivity-enhancing new technology. As a result, productivity growth, which is necessary for higher average living standards, falls off. Conversely, high minimum wage levels result in higher productivity. Thus, raising our currently low minimum wage levels would improve the country’s overall economic health more than any hiring cutbacks triggered by the raise would harm it.

Summarize Argument
The economist concludes raising the minimum wage would provide a net benefit to the economy, despite possibly increasing unemployment. Why? Because it would result in higher productivity, and the current low minimum wage incentivizes businesses to hire more workers rather than invest in technology that would improve productivity and allow for higher living standards.

Notable Assumptions
The economist assumes raising the minimum wage would not cause large enough hiring cutbacks to outweigh the benefits of productivity growth. This means assuming the country’s overall economic health depends at least partly on productivity growth.

A
Productivity growth in a country usually leads to an eventual increase in job creation.
This implies the main downside to a minimum wage increase—job losses—will be only temporary, thus strengthening the economist’s case for a higher minimum wage.
B
The economist’s country has seen a slow but steady increase in its unemployment rate over the last decade.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t imply the increase would still be slow if the minimum wage were raised.
C
A country’s unemployment rate is a key factor in determining its average living standards.
This weakens the economist’s argument. It suggests extra unemployment caused by a minimum wage increase could cancel out the benefit to average living standards caused by increased productivity.
D
The economist’s country currently lags behind other countries in the development of new technology.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say that a higher minimum wage would cause an especially large investment in new technology, nor that such technology would cause an especially large productivity increase.
E
Productivity-enhancing new technology tends to quickly become outdated.
If anything, this weakens the economist’s argument. It implies the primary benefit of raising the minimum wage—greater productivity because of more investment in technology—would be short-lived.

17 comments

For pollinating certain crops such as cranberries, bumblebees are far more efficient than honeybees. This is because a bumblebee tends to visit only a few plant species in a limited area, whereas a honeybee generally flies over a much broader area and visits a wider variety of species.

Summary

Bumblebees pollinate a smaller number of plant species in a more limited area than do honeybees. This makes bumblebees more efficient at pollinating some crops, including cranberries.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Cranberries are more efficiently pollinated by pollinators who focus on a narrow range of species in a small area.

When a pollinator visits many species of plants, it decreases that pollinator’s efficiency in pollinating cranberries.

A
If a honeybee visits a wider variety of plant species than a bumblebee visits, the honeybee will be less efficient than the bumblebee at pollinating any one of those species.

Unsupported. This is too broad a claim. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that visiting a small number of plant species makes bumblebees more efficient at pollinating any species—it only makes them more efficient for “certain crops such as cranberries.”

B
The number of plant species other than cranberries that a bee visits affects the efficiency with which the bee pollinates cranberries.

Strongly supported. The difference in efficiency between the two kinds of bee is due to a difference in the geographic range and number of plant species visited by each kind of bee. This suggests that the number of additional plant species visited may affect efficiency.

C
The broader an area a bee flies over, the smaller the number of plant species that bee will be able to visit.

Anti-supported. Honeybees fly over a broader area than bumblebees do, and yet honeybees also visit a larger number of plant species.

D
Cranberries are typically found concentrated in limited areas that bumblebees are more likely than honeybees ever to visit.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest any reason why bumblebees would be more likely than honeybees to visit cranberries. If anything, honeybees visit a broader area and encounter more kinds of plants than bumblebees do.

E
The greater the likelihood of a given bee species visiting one or more plants in a given cranberry crop, the more efficient that bee species will be at pollinating that crop.

Unsupported. Bumblebees are more efficient at pollinating cranberries, but there’s nothing to suggest that this is because they’re somehow more likely to visit cranberries. If anything, honeybees visit a broader area and encounter more kinds of plants than bumblebees do.


35 comments