My take:
Evidence : price is the main driver in purchasing decisions
Conclusion : this shows how little most consumer are aware of their motivations

assump?
despite what they answer to the poll, they don't buy cheapest staple.

A-> out of scope : level of income not discussed
B -> negated , very little change for the conclusion , so out
C-> out of scope
D -> unless staple is a desert, definitely out of scope; any inpulsive is out of scope
E -> why not, negated? conclusion does not stand.

my answer is E

This was a tough one! Here I show my analysis:

Conc: Responses of poll demonstrate how little most people are aware of the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions.
P1: When polled, all consumers would buy the lowest cost HS.
P2: Even when other factors (quality), are introduce, all consumers still argue that low cost should be the highest priority in buying household staples.

Prethinking:
The conclusion states implies that there is a contradiction between what customers answered in the poll (buy the lowest cost) and what they really did (with little awareness)
Falsifying conclusion: In which scenario, the responses of the pool demonstrate that people are aware of the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions? Indeed, if there is a piece of evidence that shows that customers actually buy low price products vs products with other attributes (ex: quality). So the assumption for this argument is the negation of this scenario. Piece of evidence that shows that people actually don't buy low price products. This will make the conclusion stronger.

Answer analysis
(A) Many people on restricted incomes are not able to afford any brands of household staples more expensive than the lowest cost items. Incorrect
Scope is reduced to an specific group of people (with low income).

(B) Consumers do not always have the motivation to be truthful about their real motivations when responding to a stranger giving a poll. Incorrect
I think this option weakens the conclusion. If they are lying when responding to the poll. They are probably aware about their actual priorities when purchasing household staples.

(C) Often, higher priced brands of household staples, especially organic versions, are more nutritious and are rated better-tasting in double-blind tests. Incorrect OFS. Results of double-blind test is not stated.

(D) People often give unreliable and self-contradictory explanations after the impulse purchase of a snack or dessert. Incorrect OFS. The validity of people's responses when they buy snack or dessert is not in discussion. The argument focusses on household staples.

(E) For many household staples, famous name brands with recognizable ads consistently outsell less expensive brands of the same products. Correct!. Aligned with pre-thinking; if negated, the conclusion is shattered. If famous brands sell more than less expensive brands of the same products, it means that people are not actually buying the lowest priced products (as they stated in the polls), so they are little aware of their actual priorities.

mike

Do not agree with the question choices. E is definitely a strengthener, but, its not an assumption. The statement simply provides a fact that supports sales analyst conclusion but does not bridge logic gap between premise and conclusion.

A possible assumption - Sales analyst assumes that consumers always do what they say in a poll or Sales analyst assumes that consumers do not intentionally hide their interest or actual motivations that drive their buying decisions.

Hi I still don't get why E is the answer to this Question
By our premises we know that people actually prefer cheaper staples and Our conclusion says that very less aware of the actual priorities
E is contrary to the conclusion...

Sale Analyst: When polled, all consumers consistently say that, for household staples, they would buy the lowest cost items. Even when other factors, such as inherent product quality, are introduce, all consumers still argue that low cost should be the highest priority in buying household staples. Therefore, these responses demonstrate how little most people are aware of the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions.

The conclusion above is properly drawn if which of the following is assumed?

(A) Many people on restricted incomes are not able to afford any brands of household staples more expensive than the lowest cost items.

(B) Consumers do not always have the motivation to be truthful about their real motivations when responding to a stranger giving a poll.

(C) Often, higher priced brands of household staples, especially organic versions, are more nutritious and are rated better-tasting in double-blind tests.

(D) People often give unreliable and self-contradictory explanations after the impulse purchase of a snack or dessert.

(E) For many household staples, famous name brands with recognizable ads consistently outsell less expensive brands of the same products.

The prompt is basically saying that people say that low prices is what drives them to purchase certain items, but that isn't true. So we have to find an answer that supports this.

(A) Many people on restricted incomes are not able to afford any brands of household staples more expensive than the lowest cost items.--this would weaken the conclusion. This supports that price is the only factor involved in buying products.


(B) Consumers do not always have the motivation to be truthful about their real motivations when responding to a stranger giving a poll.- this may be true but it doesn't give us another reason as to what people look for when purchasing items.
(C) Often, higher priced brands of household staples, especially organic versions, are more nutritious and are rated better-tasting in double-blind tests.-This one is close, but just because consumers may rate something more expensive, doesn't mean they'll buy it.
(D) People often give unreliable and self-contradictory explanations after the impulse purchase of a snack or dessert.-out of scope
(E) For many household staples, famous name brands with recognizable ads consistently outsell less expensive brands of the same products.-yes. If we are to believe that consumers only buy products that are the lowest price this would not be true. This if famous brand names consistently sell out there has to be another factor other than price that drives purchasing habits.

Dear suramya26,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, the whole mismatch, the crux of this prompt argument, takes place in the final sentence. The first two sentences simply recount what people say:
Sale Analyst: When polled, all consumers consistently say that, for household staples, they would buy the lowest cost items. Even when other factors, such as inherent product quality, are introduce, all consumers still argue that low cost should be the highest priority in buying household staples.
All of that is simply what people say, their statements about how they behave--or how they think they behave.

As we all know, sometimes people's behaviors match their words, and sometimes they don't. One has only to listen to politicians to realize there there are times that people's words don't match their actions! Furthermore, guaranteed way to lose money in the business world is to believe unquestioningly that every single person is going to do exactly what they say they are going to do! The GMAT CR ruthlessly punishes gullibility, precisely because the real business world punishes it even more harshly. In this CR argument, in the first two sentences, all we have at this point are people's words. We have no reason either to believe them or doubt them so far.

Then, the heart of the argument is this last sentence:
Therefore, these responses demonstrate how little most people are aware of the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions.
If I were to say to Person X: "what you say demonstrates how little you know!" I would be saying to Person X that I think he is wrong and that his words indicate an error in thinking. It's an extremely powerful statement to tell someone that their words demonstrate how much they don't know, that their words prove an error in their understanding. That is the potent kind of statement the sales analyst is making in this last sentence.

I'm be more specific. Let's say that I said to Person X, "what you say proves how much you don't know about math." What I am saying is that something in Person X's words demonstrated quite clearly some definite mathematical mistakes. If I say that to person X, a clear inference would be that I thought that I have found mathematical mistakes in what person X said. If other people hearing this trusted my own understanding of math, they would conclude that Person X didn't understand math that well.--I hasten to add that saying it this way is quite blunt and therefore harsh and insensitive: I would never address a real student on GC this way, because it would sound like a bald insult. This is an uncompromisingly direct way of stating the fact, which is precisely what makes it so powerful as a point of argument. In the rhetoric of argument, we will say powerful things in the abstract to make a point, but we would not say such powerful things to real people in way that would hurt their feelings.

Now, think about this final sentence. What does the sales analyst say that people don't understand? "the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions." In other words, people are wrong about what makes them buy some things and not others. We just found out, in the previous sentences how the people were thinking, what they said about their priorities, and then, in the final sentence, we get this powerful statement: what they say about their buying priorities is wrong. In other words, there's a mismatch between the priorities that they verbally espouse and the priorities that drive their actual buying choices. What they say and what they really do don't match.

Well, if people say their priority is always to buy the cheapest household staples, and what they say about their priorities is wrong and doesn't match what they do, then it's an inescapable conclusion that sometimes people buy household staples that are not the cheapest. We cannot avoid drawing this conclusion from the last sentence, once we fully appreciate what it says.

Does all this make sense, my friend?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep





Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

this is an assumption question, not a inference question.
Also, why gmat does not have other color than black?

Verbal experts,

I was just going through this question on Magoosh's website and got stumped by it.
Here it goes :

Sale Analyst: When polled, all consumers consistently say that, for household staples, they would buy the lowest cost items. Even when other factors, such as inherent product quality, are introduce, all consumers still argue that low cost should be the highest priority in buying household staples. Therefore, these responses demonstrate how little most people are aware of the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions.

The conclusion above is properly drawn if which of the following is assumed?

(A) Many people on restricted incomes are not able to afford any brands of household staples more expensive than the lowest cost items.

(B) Consumers do not always have the motivation to be truthful about their real motivations when responding to a stranger giving a poll.

(C) Often, higher priced brands of household staples, especially organic versions, are more nutritious and are rated better-tasting in double-blind tests.

(D) People often give unreliable and self-contradictory explanations after the impulse purchase of a snack or dessert.

(E) For many household staples, famous name brands with recognizable ads consistently outsell less expensive brands of the same products.

The official answer to this question is E, which to me seems more like a strengthener than an assumption. Can you please apply the negation technique and help with this question.

Gone through this discussion, but I still don't get how 'É' is an assumption and not a strengthener.
mikemcgarry - can you please look into my query ?

pkshankar

Option E is indeed an assumption.

The argument says when polled consumer say they buy the lowest price staples and even if other factors are introduced they still say the same.

Then, the argument takes a jump and says that consumer are little aware of the actual priorities that drive their purchasing decisions.

To bridge the above gap we need to add an assumption, which says consumers are not buying the lowest staples.
Statement E says that exactly.