Summary
The author concludes that if ad agencies gear their ads mainly to older adults, then they can maximize their clients’ profits. This is based on the fact that older adults control most of this nation’s disposable income.
Missing Connection
We have no compelling reason to believe that targeting older adults will maximize profits. Sure, older adults may control most of the nation’s disposable income. But that doesn’t imply that ads targeted toward them will get them to spend more money than ads targeted toward other groups.
To make the argument valid, we want to establish the following relationship:
If ad agencies target their ads toward a group of people who control most of this nation’s personal disposable income, that will maximize their clients’ profits.
To make the argument valid, we want to establish the following relationship:
If ad agencies target their ads toward a group of people who control most of this nation’s personal disposable income, that will maximize their clients’ profits.
A
Older people generally have larger incomes and have had longer to accumulate resources than younger people.
This might explain why older people control most of this nation’s personal disposable income. But (A) doesn’t establish that targeting ads toward this group of people will maximize profits. Older people might not spend as much in response to ads compared to other groups of people.
B
No company can maximize its profits unless it markets its products primarily to a population segment that controls most of this nation’s personal disposable income.
(B) establishes that if a company does NOT market its products toward a population that controls most of the disposable income, then a company will NOT maximize its profits. But we’re trying to establish that if a company DOES gear its ads toward a population that controls most disposable income, that it CAN maximize its profits.
C
Advertising that is directed toward the wealthiest people is the most effective means for a business to improve the reputation of its products.
(C) can establish that a particular advertising strategy would do the best to “improve the reputation” of a company’s products. But this doesn’t establish what can maximize profits.
D
No advertising agency that tailors its advertisements mainly to an audience that does not control much of this nation’s personal disposable income will maximize its clients’ profits.
(D) establishes that if you tailor your ads to people who don’t control a lot of disposable income, you won’t maximize clients’ profits. But we’re trying to establish companies CAN maximize profits by targeting a certain group.
E
Any advertising agency that gears its advertisements mainly to a population segment that controls 50 percent or more of this nation’s personal disposable income will maximize its clients’ profits.
Older adults control more than 50% of the nation’s disposable income (because they control more than does the rest of the population combined). (E) establishes that gearing ads toward this group of people will maximize profits.
Binh: Undeniably, the insurer is in business to make money. But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit in no way implies that buying one of its policies is unwise.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Kira concludes that it’s unwise for us to buy the insurance policy. This is because Kira thinks it’s designed to make money for the insurance company.
Binh concedes that an insurance company wants to make money. But Binh points out that this fact doesn’t imply that buying an insurance policy is unwise.
Binh concedes that an insurance company wants to make money. But Binh points out that this fact doesn’t imply that buying an insurance policy is unwise.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Binh points out that Kira’s premise is not sufficient to prove her conclusion.
A
suggesting that Kira has overlooked a fact that, although consistent with her premises, is in direct conflict with her conclusion
Binh doesn’t point out any fact that Kira has overlooked. Binh points out that Kira’s own premise doesn’t support her conclusion.
B
denying Kira’s premises while suggesting that her conclusion, although possibly true, is highly unlikely
Binh does not deny Kira’s premises. He admits that insurance companies want to make money, and he does not deny that insurance companies set prices to ensure profits.
C
arguing that Kira’s premises are not only inadequate to prove her conclusion but in fact point strongly toward its being false
Binh does not argue that Kira’s premises strongly point toward her conclusion being false. Binh simply notes that her premises do not prove her conclusion.
D
conceding Kira’s premises without denying her conclusion, while asserting that the latter does not follow from the former
Binh concedes Kira’s premises (acknowledges insurer wants money and makes profit) and asserts that her conclusion (that the insurance policy is unwise) does not follow from her premises.
E
observing that while Kira’s premises each independently support her conclusion, the premises themselves are inconsistent with one another
Binh does not suggest that Kira’s premises provide any support to her conclusion. He also does not suggest that her premises contradict each other.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
An Economist argues that increasing the minimum wage in Country X will quickly lead to a decrease in the country’s unemployment rate. This is because raising the minimum wage will increase people’s disposable income, which people will spend on consumer goods. This increase in demand will then lead to an increase in factory jobs to meet the demand for new goods.
Notable Assumptions
The Economist assumes that the number of jobs created by increasing demand will outpace the number of jobs lost by raising the minimum wage and that the cost of goods will not increase due to increasing the minimum wage.
A
The cost of a minimum-wage increase in Country X will be passed on to consumers in the form of significantly higher prices for consumer goods.
This weakens the author’s claim that the demand for goods will cause more factory workers to be hired. If prices rise, demand could potentially not increase to a level that would rapidly create more jobs to keep up with consumer demand.
B
Most of the consumer goods sold in Country X are produced outside the country.
This weakens the argument because most of the factory jobs created to keep up with demand would not come from *within* the country. Thus, the country’s unemployment rate would not rapidly decrease to the extent that the Economist predicts.
C
In many factories in Country X, most workers are paid much more than the current minimum wage.
This does not weaken the argument because it only addresses *one* industry in Country X. It is unclear how large this industry is. This does not weaken the author’s claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to more income for a large segment of the working population.
D
The cost to employers of an increase in the minimum wage in Country X will be made up by reductions in the workforce.
This weakens the argument because it undermines one of the Economist’s key assumptions: that the increase in factory jobs will outpace the number of job losses around the country. If this were true, then it is not likely that the unemployment rate would drastically decrease.
E
Most factories that produce consumer goods in Country X have large surpluses of goods as a result of years of overproduction.
This weakens the argument because if the factories have large surpluses, then they will not need to hire more workers to keep up with the demand for consumer goods.