IMO E

Premise - For the past year, a network television talk-show host has been making fun of the name pf a particular brand of chainsaw, the Tree Toppler.

Conclusion - The ridicule is obviously taking its toll: in the past 12 months, sales of the Tree Toppler have declined by 15%, while the sales of other chainsaws have increased.

Assumption - Because of the Tree Toppler the sales are declining. There is no other reason.

Pre Thinking - What is there is some other reason behind the decline in sales?
What is the customer's are not happy ?

Any other Reason will weaken the conclusion.

A. The talk-show host who is ridiculing the Tree Toppler name actually owns a Tree Toppler. - This means the owner is himself making his brand suffer? - Out of Scope ( x )

B. The number of product complaints from owners of Tree Toppler has not increased in the past year. - Still the sales are declining - Distortion ( x )

C. The average price of all chainsaws has increased by 10 percent in the past year. - since all companies have increased their average price but there is only one company is reporting decrease in sales ( x )

D. The number of Stores that sell the Tree Toppler has remained steady for the past year. - IRRELEVANT ( X )

E. A year ago, a leading consumer magazine rated the Tree Toppler as "intolerably unsafe." - This affects the Assumption because this provides alternate solution for decrease in sales ( ✔ )

Answer is E. Classic cause and effect argument.

Cause in the passage is the person making fun of the brand name and effect is decline in sales. E gives us another factor that could drive the sales down.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Conclusion: One talk show is making fun of the name of one chainsaw "the Tree Toppler", so, based on that, customers are not buying this chainsaw because the talk show made fun of it.


This is a weakening question, thus, we need another factor that affecting the sales of the chainsaw "the Tree Toppler" rather than this talk show. Let us check the answer choices, one by one.


A. The talk-show host who is ridiculing the Tree Toppler name actually owns a Tree Toppler. --- No tie to the argument, we need another reason to make the chainsaw sales reduce!

B. The number of product complaints from owners of Tree Toppler has not increased in the past year. --- So, the sales should be increased as there is no complaint!

C. The average price of all chainsaws has increased by 10 percent in the past year. --- If that is right, why the sales of other brands have been increased, and only the tree toppler is decreased.

D. The number of Stores that sell the Tree Toppler has remained steady for the past year. --- So, why sales of toppler tree have decreased while there are many of them in the stores!

E. A year ago, a leading consumer magazine rated the Tree Toppler as "intolerably unsafe." ----- This is the answer, before one year, customers read about the tree toppler that it is unsafe, therefore, the sales have been declined. This is another factor rather than a talking show!

Conclusion: The ridicule is obviously taking its toll: in the past 12 months, sales of the Tree Toppler have declined by 15%, while the sales of other chainsaws have increased.

Pre-thinking: we have to make author claim weak, it means, there would be another reason which is forcing sales decline sales of the "Tree Toppler".

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the conclusion drawn above?


A. The talk-show host who is ridiculing the Tree Toppler name actually owns a Tree Toppler. -> It is irrelevant to increase or decrease in sales of the "Tree Toppler".

B. The number of product complaints from owners of Tree Toppler has not increased in the past year.-> It is irrelevant to increase or decrease in sales of the "Tree Toppler".

C. The average price of all chainsaws has increased by 10 percent in the past year.-> But, we have other Tree topplers sales increased, means, it is not contributing to decline in the sales of the "Tree Toppler".

D. The number of Stores that sell the Tree Toppler has remained steady for the past year. -> so, how it is related to increase or decrease in the sales of the "Tree Toppler".

E. A year ago, a leading consumer magazine rated the Tree Toppler as "intolerably unsafe." -> So, another event targeting decline in sales of Tree toppler, it makes sense as per our pre-thinking. Let's keep it.

So, I think E.

For the past year, a network television talk-show host has been making fun of the name pf a particular brand of chainsaw, the Tree Toppler. The ridicule is obviously taking its toll: in the past 12 months, sales of the Tree Toppler have declined by 15%, while the sales of other chainsaws have increased.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

Any statement that can support, the sales have decreased because of other reasons and not because of the talk show would be the correct answer.

A. The talk-show host who is ridiculing the Tree Toppler name actually owns a Tree Toppler. - It does not matter, Out of scope

B. The number of product complaints from owners of Tree Toppler has not increased in the past year. - Strengthener

C. The average price of all chainsaws has increased by 10 percent in the past year. - not sufficient information to conclude that price of Tree Toppler has also increased. Also no information available about its impact on sales.

D. The number of Stores that sell the Tree Toppler has remained steady for the past year. - Irrelevant

E. A year ago, a leading consumer magazine rated the Tree Toppler as "intolerably unsafe." - Providing the proper reasoning
As Tree Toppler is "intolerably unsafe", so people have stopped purchasing
-CORRECT

Premise : a network television talk-show host has been making fun of the name of the Tree Toppler.

Conclusion : The ridicule is obviously taking its toll , sales of the Tree Toppler have declined by 15%, while the sales of other chainsaws have increased.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the conclusion drawn above - This is weaken type question, hence we need to weaken the conclusion that sales of Tree Toppler are declining because talk-show host has been making fun of it.

In what scenario, talk-show is not responsible for decline in sales.

1. What if something else happened in last one year (let us say quality of product/service that Tree Toppler provides has reduced) - In this case, it is not television host who is responsible for decline in sales
2. What if because of television host, there has been increase in awareness of brand of Tree Toppler but number of repeat customers have significantly reduced - in this case, sales actually increased because of television host

A. choice A doesn't tell us anything about sales of Tree Toppler. Hence incorrect.

B. The number of product complaints from owners of Tree Toppler has not increased in the past year. - number of complaints is same as that of last year, but it doesn't provide us any reason for reduction is sales. Hence incorrect.

C. The average price of all chainsaws has increased by 10 percent in the past year. - irrelevant as we don't know how price of other chains affected Tree Toppler

D. The number of Stores that sell the Tree Toppler has remained steady for the past year. - irrelevant as we don't know how number of stores have impacted the sales. Increase/decrease in number of sales is not necessarily dependent on increase/decrease in number of stores

E. A year ago, a leading consumer magazine rated the Tree Toppler as "intolerably unsafe." - As per our 1st point, there's some other reason for decline in sales. Hence correct.

Official Explanation:

E

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

Because this stem asks you to “cast doubt” on the conclusion, this is a Weaken question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

For the last year, a talk-show host has been ridiculing Tree Toppler chainsaws. Over that time, Tree Toppler sales have fallen while other chainsaws’ sales have risen. The author concludes that the talk-show host’s jokes must have caused the declining Tree Toppler sales.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

To weaken an argument in which X is claimed to have caused Y, consider whether Y might actually have caused X (i.e., reversal) or whether something else might have caused Y (i.e., alternative cause). In this case, it seems unlikely that the decline in sales caused the on-air ridicule; the host is making fun of the chainsaw’s name, not its declining sales. Therefore, the correct answer to this Weaken question will probably offer some alternative explanation for the decline in Tree Toppler sales.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

(E) provides that alternative explanation. If a prominent magazine rates a chainsaw as unsafe, that could certainly deter people from purchasing it, and a subsequent decline in sales would be reasonable to expect. (E) matches the prediction and is the correct answer. If you hadn’t immediately recognized (E) as a match for your prediction, you could still find the right answer by eliminating answer choices that miss the mark. Even if the talk-show host actually owns a Tree Toppler, as (A) says, the decline in sales could still be caused by the host’s on-air ridicule; (A) is out of scope. (B) is a 180 because it actually strengthens the argument by eliminating a potential alternative explanation for the decline in sales. (C) might be tempting, but the argument actually mentions that sales of other chainsaws have increased, so an increase in the purchase price of all chainsaws is not a reasonable alternative explanation. (D) also strengthens the argument by eliminating another alternative explanation for the decline in sales (that fewer stores are carrying the Tree Toppler). Choice (E) is the correct answer.
_________________