Hi,

Any other form of advertising also included un-targeted mailing. This option is basically saying that in terms of response rates - this is better than most other forms, i.e, it is pretty damn effective considering the options we have.

Also, for B - What does successful organisation mean? They maybe making the most money, but our concern is advertising through mail and how we can improve that. A successful organisation doesn't mean it is doing well in literally everything. Also, whatever despite what these organisations are doing, the customers are receiving a lot of junk mail. Hence, this kind of weakens the argument.

Can someones please elaborate on D?
If it is out of scope due to ' quality of advertising materials' then the same reasoning can be true for E- comparison with other mediums

Hi Vartika

We should not only consider parts of the option to be out of scope but the statement as a whole. For instance, in this stimulus, the conclusion is derived as follows:

Too much junk mail --> customers discard all mail --> low response rates of ads by mails

Therefore, carefully target customers --> less junk mail --> better response rates

Option (D) is about the consequence of "quality of advertising materials". This does not appear anywhere in the reasoning chain in the stimulus and is hence out of scope. Option (E), on the other hand, talks about the consequence of "carefully targeted advertisements by mail", which is part of the conclusion of the stimulus and is very much relevant. Merely because there is another factor (comparison with other media) does not make an option out of scope. We need to identify the key issue which is addressed by the option and decide whether it is pertinent to the conclusion or not.

Hope this helps.
_________________

A. The passage didn't say anything about cost-effectiveness. [out of scope]
B. Successful corporations are targeting individuals to mail does not mean that the corporations will get fruitful results.
C. This option weakens the recommendation.
D. The passage didn't say that the advertisement materials are of bad quality. [out of scope]
E. Corporations get a higher response if they send mail to the target customer. This ensures the success of the recommendation.

Ans. E
_________________

Advertising by mail has become much less effective, with fewer consumers responding. Because consumers are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of junk mail they receive, most discard almost all offers without considering them. Thus, an effective way for corporations to improve response rates would be to more carefully target the individuals to whom they mail advertising, thereby cutting down on the amount of junk mail each consumer receives.

Which of the following, if true, would most support this recommendation?

(A) There are cost effective means by which corporations that currently advertise by mail could improve response rates.

Note that the conclusion of the argument is about the effectiveness of a plan to improve response rates…is cost a factor that we would consider in reality? Absolutely. But, this is not the focus of this passage.

(B) Many successful corporations are already carefully targeting the individuals to whom they mail advertising.

I think this could go either way really. If corporations are already doing it, then that potentially gives us an indication that it’s an effective method. But, we don’t have anything to support that conclusion.

Conversely, this could have the effect of weakening the argument. We know from the passage that few consumers respond because they are concerned by junk mail. Well, if it’s also true that the mail was targeted, then the recommendation loses its weight. I would lead towards this weakening given the rationale that I provided.

(C) Any consumer who, immediately after receiving an advertisement by mail, merely glances at it is very likely to discard it.

Well this just builds on something we already know – that most people discard almost all offers.

(D) Improvements in the quality of the advertising materials used in mail that is carefully targeted to individuals can improve the response rate for such mail.

This is plausible and again is something that would apply in reality. But, it doesn’t address the fundamental gap in the argument – why should we more carefully target people? Where’s the evidence?

(E) Response rates to carefully targeted advertisements by mail are considerably higher, on average, than response rates to most other forms of advertising.

Correct. Bingo. This gives us the additional evidence we need. The desired end goal is to improve response rates and this here provides evidence to support the conclusion by explicitly stating a previously unstated assumption that targeted advertising works better than other methods.