"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did profits decline for businesses that used a customer satisfaction survey designed to increase profits while businesses that did not use a survey experienced no such decline?
Objective
The right answer will explain some difference between the businesses that used the survey and the businesses that did not. That difference could be a result of the survey, or it could be some pre-existing factor. In either case, it will highlight an issue with the survey-using businesses that is not present in the others.
A
When one business increases its profits, its competitors often report a decline in profits.
This doesn’t explain why businesses that used a survey experienced declines in profits while others did not. Even if one group must do worse, we might expect the businesses that collected customer feedback to be the ones that faired better. We want to know why that didn’t happen.
B
Some businesses routinely use customer surveys.
This doesn’t add any new information. We already know that some businesses routinely use customer surveys—the stimulus tells us that!
C
Most businesses of the kind included in the study generally administer customer surveys only as a response to complaints by customers.
This is the explanation we need. If the surveys are only administered as a response to complaints, then the businesses that administered surveys are the ones that customers had complaints about. If customers were complaining, it makes sense that sales and profits declined!
D
Customers who complete surveys do not always respond accurately to all the questions on the survey.
Even if businesses acted on the results of inaccurate responses, it doesn’t explain why they would have worse profit growth than those that did not use surveys at all. This answer doesn’t tell us anything about the correlation between administering surveys and declining profits.
E
Some of the businesses included in the study did not analyze the results of the customer surveys they conducted.
This could explain why the surveys did not help some businesses increase their profits, but it doesn’t give us any information about why most of the survey-using businesses experienced decreased profits while most others did not.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Ornithologists conclude that, despite recent reforestation efforts, the songbird situation is still getting worse. This is because songbirds are affected by forest fragmentation rather than a net reduction in size. Open spaces and wide corridors in forests, presumably the result of reforestation, make songbirds less shielded from their natural predators.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text gives a phenomenon that’s seemingly at odds with the wider situation. Shouldn’t reforestation efforts mean the songbird situation is improving? The argument shows why this isn’t necessarily the case.
A
It is used as evidence that various species of songbirds will continue to be threatened with extinction.
The referenced text isn’t evidence. It’s a phenomenon that the author reconciles with the current threat to songbird species.
B
It is presented as a claim that is rejected by ornithologists who present declining songbird populations as evidence of deforestation.
The author never states that ornithologists reject the claim that reforestation is happening. In fact, it’s something the ornithologists in question do in fact claim.
C
It is presented as a phenomenon that is compatible with the ornithologists’ claim that the threat to songbirds continues to worsen.
Despite reforestation seeming helpful to songbird species, the threat to songbirds is only growing stronger. The rest of the argument demonstrates how these two things can happen at once.
D
It is used as evidence that songbirds’ predators will continue to have a habitat and so will continue to pose a threat to songbirds.
The argument isn’t that reforestation gives songbirds’ predators a home. It’s that forest fragmentation leaves songbirds vulnerable to predators.
E
It is presented as evidence for the claim that songbirds’ predators are threatened by extinction unless they have open spaces and corridors that give them access to their prey.
The referenced text isn’t evidence. It certainly isn’t supporting the idea that songbirds’ predators are threatened which extinction, since that claim never appears in the argument.
Summary
The author concludes that the technical sophistication of newer video games often makes them less compelling to players. This is based on the fact that in these newer games, players find it hard to identify with the in-game figures that they control. The reason players find it hard to identify with these figures is that players can see these figures represent other people.
Missing Connection
The conclusion introduces the concept of being “less compelling to players.” The premises don’t establish anything about what leads to a game being less compelling to players. So at a minimum, the correct answer should establish what makes a game less compelling.
We can make a more specific prediction, because the premises tell us what the author thinks leads to games being less compelling. The premises establish that in the newer video games, players find it hard to identify with the figures they control. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if it’s hard to identify with the figures one controls, a game becomes less compelling.
We can make a more specific prediction, because the premises tell us what the author thinks leads to games being less compelling. The premises establish that in the newer video games, players find it hard to identify with the figures they control. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if it’s hard to identify with the figures one controls, a game becomes less compelling.
A
There are no newer, more technically sophisticated video games in which the player controls the movements of a simple icon on the screen.
(A) doesn’t establish what makes a game less compelling to players. Since neither this answer nor the premises establish what makes a game less compelling, it cannot make the argument valid.
B
Most early video games in which the player controlled a simple icon on the screen were in other respects less compelling to players than newer video games.
(B) establishes that certain early video games were less compelling than the newer video games. But this doesn’t establish that the technical sophistication of newer video games makes them less compelling.
C
The technical sophistication necessary for creating detailed human figures in video games cannot in itself make those video games fully compelling even to players who identify with those figures.
(C) establishes that the technical sophistication of the video games isn’t sufficient to make the games fully compelling. But this doesn’t establish that it decreases how compelling the games are. There’s a difference between not making something the most compelling and actively decreasing how compelling something is.
D
When players cannot easily identify with the figure or icon whose movements they control in a video game, they usually find that game less compelling than it otherwise would be.
(D) connects the premises to why the technical sophistication of newer video games often makes them less compelling. Failure of players to easily identify with the in-game figures they control usually decreases how compelling a game is.
E
If some aspect of a video game’s technical sophistication makes it less compelling to players, then that video game contains a human figure with whom it is difficult for players to identify.
(E) tells us what must be true IF an aspect of technical sophistication makes a game less compelling. But that’s the destination; we want to reach the conclusion that something is less compelling.