The government of Penglai, an isolated island, proposed eliminating ou

OA is B. A, C, and E are out right away. We r lft w/ B n D.

Complaint of the merchants: "the law would reduce the overall volume of business in Penglai".

Gov´s report: "in every industry the Penglai businesses that used outdoor advertising had a larger market share than those that did not".

What is an error of reasoning of the merchants:
assuming that overall business volume will be reduced by less outdoor advertising; in other words, that advertising actually influences overall business volume in the island (well, in general, advertising does so, but it doesn´t necessarily hold in this particular case).

It is a marvelous question.

D is of a kind of question "flaw in reasoning/argument" or "reasoning vulnerable to criticism".

B is an answer.

One must not confuse "flaw in reasoning" questions with "error of reasoning" questions because they predicated upon different concepts.

I like trickiness of the CR.

Nice question. Thank for explanation. No spot for any discussion here.

(D) failing to establish whether the market-share advantage enjoyed by businesses employing outdoor advertising was precisely proportionate to the amount of advertising

In choice D, the proportion of outdoor advertising in comparison with other kinds of advertising possibly helps something. But how precise the report here does not play role here.

We have to find error in reasoning of protesting merchants.

Government: Remove outdoor advertisements.Small signboards are sufficient.
Protesters: Law will hurt business.
How: Recent reports of government reveals that businesses those do more outdoor advertisement have large market share. But here no justification is provided by protesting merchants.

Is outdoor advertisement bring more business and large market share?
Yes: Law will hurt.
No: Law will not hurt.

Means protesters are assuming that Outdoor business creates large market share and more business.

After this analysis if argument I reached to B and D.

B is quite close to my understanding and our target.

D Fails to establish that the market-share advantage enjoyed by businesses employing outdoor advertising is proportional to amount of advertisement.

Amount of advertisement is not discussed. And this option deviates from the main argument.

B is correct.

The government of Penglai, an isolated island, proposed eliminating outdoor adverting except for small signs of standard shape that identify places of business. Some island merchants protested that the law would reduce the overall volume of business in Penglai, pointing to a report done by the government indicating that in every industry the Penglai businesses that used outdoor advertising had a larger market share than those that did not.

Which one of the following describes an error of reasoning in the merchants’ argument?

(A) presupposing that there are no good reasons for restricting the use of outdoor advertising in Penglai - WRONG. A valid counter with a reasoning is already given.

(B) assuming without giving justification that the outdoor advertising increased market share by some means other than by diverting trade from competing businesses - CORRECT. Whether the content of survey would always be true or not is questionable.

(C) ignoring the question of whether the government’s survey of the island could be objective - WRONG. Like D only. Not the core of the passage.

(D) failing to establish whether the market-share advantage enjoyed by businesses employing outdoor advertising was precisely proportionate to the amount of advertising - WRONG. The establishment was for counter argument to the govt's proposal. Whether this counter argument's reasoning is good or bad is altogether a different scope that the passage is not concerned with.

(E) disregarding the possibility that the government’s proposed restrictions are unconstitutional - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer B.

The report indicates a consistent observation across various industries: Penglai businesses employing outdoor advertising tend to possess a larger market share compared to those that do not utilize such advertising strategies. The focus of the report is on establishing a correlation between market share and outdoor advertising among Penglai businesses. However, there exists a misinterpretation among merchants who assert a direct causative relationship between market share and outdoor advertising in Penglai businesses based on the findings of the report.

Option B accurately identifies this issue.