Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, ad

Question

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers. Simply by organizing these data, they can easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly inferred?

(A) Restaurants other than pizzerias cannot easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers.

(B) For restaurants, utilizing direct-mail marketing requires the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.

(C) For restaurants, the identification of regular, average, and infrequent customers generally involves recording the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.

(D) Utilizing direct-mail marketing is rarely beneficial for restaurants that cannot identify regular, average, and infrequent customers.

(E) Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Wait, what? I suspect this is going to be a fairly manageable question for me, because I think the argument is obviously bullshit. Now, when I say “obviously bullshit,” I don’t mean it’s fundamentally unreasonable, or that the conclusion can’t conceivably be true. But I  do  mean that the argument has a giant hole in it. Specifically, my objection is, “Where the **** did ‘direct-mail marketing’ come from?”

The evidence here is basically, “Pizzerias kick ass in gathering and organizing customer data.” Okay, that’s nice. But the conclusion is, “Therefore pizzerias kick ass at direct-mail marketing.” And that conclusion is FAR from proven.

Just because you’re good at collecting and organizing data does not mean you’re actually going to do anything with it. The folks at Woodstock’s Pizza might collect the data, but be too high to bother creating a direct-mail campaign.  They have a magic dragon mascot, for Chrissakes . Furthermore, even if you did do something with the data, it doesn’t mean you’re going to do anything useful with it. Woodstock’s Pizza might do a direct-mail campaign about NORML instead of trying to sell pizza. And even if you did do something useful with it, that doesn’t mean you’re going to be better at doing it than anybody else. The folks at Woodstock’s Pizza might get super high one day, bust out the magic markers, and brainstorm a kick-ass pizza marketing campaign. Hell, they might even manage to directly target it to exactly the right customers. But that wouldn’t preclude some other restaurant from creating an even  better  direct-mail campaign.

You get the picture; the argument sucks. Since we know why the argument sucks, we should be able to easily answer the question.

We’re asked to pick an answer that “enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly inferred.” This is a Sufficient Assumption question. Our task here is to be an attorney for the person making the argument, and help this **** argument make sense. I can usually predict the answer on a question like this. I think, “If you can collect or organize the data, then you will also be the best at using direct-mail marketing,” would be perfect. If that statement is true, then doesn’t it  force  the conclusion of the argument to be true?

A) This strengthens the argument, but I’m looking to  prove  the argument. Specifically, I really want an answer that connects in the concept of “direct-mail marketing” to the given facts. This doesn’t do it.

B) Close, but no cigar. Just because having the data is  necessary  in order to be able to do direct-mail marketing doesn’t mean it’s  sufficient  to prove that you’ll be the best at direct-mail marketing if you do have the data. If this answer is true, it proves that no restaurant without the data will be able to do direct-mail marketing. But that doesn’t prove that the stoners at Woodstock’s  will  be able to do direct-mail marketing. This answer could only ever be used to prove that someone can’t do direct-mail marketing if they lack the data. It could never be used to prove that someone  can  do direct-mail marketing, because you could still fail even if you did have the data.

C) Nah, nothing here about direct-mail marketing.

D) Like B, this one is close but no cigar. It strengthens, but does not prove, the argument.

E) Yep. This matches our prediction. I love how strongly-stated this answer choice is. On a Sufficient Assumption question, we usually want the biggest, boldest, baddest answer choice we can find. If we’re putting a witness on the stand, we want that witness to be compelling. We want an answer choice that makes it impossible to fail to reach our desired conclusion. If E is true, then the Woodstock’s stoners  will  be the best in the world at direct-mail marketing, no matter how high they are. Our answer is E. I love this question, because I think it’s a very learnable one—especially for something that appears so late in the section.

The answer is E.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

The conclusion in this Justify question also includes a new idea: pizzerias  utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively  than other restaurants. We know that pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers, so to prove the conclusion we need to show that that means that they utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants.

Answer choice (A): The conclusion is about pizzerias, so an answer choice about other restaurants cannot be correct. Further, we need the answer to include the new idea from the conclusion about utilizing direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants.

Answer choice (B): Remember, the conclusion is about utilizing direct-mail marketing  more effectively  than other restaurants. This answer choice does not address that idea.

Answer choice (C): Again, we need the answer to include the new idea from the conclusion about utilizing direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants. This answer choice does not include that information.

Answer choice (D): The overall benefit of direct-mail marketing is not important. What is important is proving that pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.  This answer choice connects the information about what pizzerias do (record customer information) and showing that this always leads to utilizing direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants.

tkorzhan1995 · Answer

Selected E 
(A) Restaurants other than pizzerias cannot easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers.

(B) For restaurants, utilizing direct-mail marketing requires the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.

(C) For restaurants, the identification of regular, average, and infrequent customers generally involves recording the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.

(D) Utilizing direct-mail marketing is rarely beneficial for restaurants that cannot identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. - Incorrect
 Tempting. Noted modifier rarely. The argument does not mention how frequently utilizing direct mail marketing may be beneficial. In addition , the following link should be established:
Record data--> identify customers--> utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively. 
There should be a link between recording data and utilizing direct-mail marketing more effectively.

(E) Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants. - Correct
Modifier routinely is aligned with generic statement in the argument. The link is established between recording data and utilizing direct-mail marketing more effectively.

ShreyasJavahar · Answer

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers. Simply by organizing these data, they can easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly inferred?

(A) Restaurants other than pizzerias cannot easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers.
The ease of identification is not something that is discussed anywhere in the argument. It could be the case that other restaurants prefer different means of marketing altogether, and therefore choose to not organise data and categorise customers based on that data.

(B) For restaurants, utilizing direct-mail marketing requires the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.
Arguably, all three would be needed for "efficient" direct-mail marketing. Would menu selections be needed for direct-mail marketing? Not really, the restaurants could just mail their entire menu to random addresses, that would still constitute direct-mail marketing. Therefore, the assumption that the "utilisation" of direct-mail marketing is incumbent on having all three aforementioned data sets is not valid.

(C) For restaurants, the identification of regular, average, and infrequent customers generally involves recording the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers.
This generalises the categorising approach and applies it to all restaurants, but it's only pizzerias doing this recording of data. What if other restaurants are using other means to market more efficiently? This assumption does not work with the argument as it brings in some loopholes, and goes against the specificity in the argument.

(D) Utilizing direct-mail marketing is rarely beneficial for restaurants that cannot identify regular, average, and infrequent customers.
The argument does not say direct-mail is rarely beneficial for restaurants besides pizzerias. For example, restaurant A could have about 70% regulars, and 30% infrequent customers. Now if A sends out mails meant for regulars to all their customers, that's still a 70% success rate, quite beneficial. They're not tailoring their mails to each demographic as the pizzerias do, but it's certainly not horrible marketing. D doesn't work.

(E) Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants.
Perfect. Specific. Who uses direct-mail marketing most effectively? Restaurants that record names, addresses and menu selections. Which restaurants do this? Pizzerias. How does that help? Helps in categorising customers. What does that mean? As stated earlier, restaurants that collect the aforementioned data use direct-mail marketing well, those restaurants happen to be pizzerias. The logic flows well, airtight. E is the answer.

unraveled · Answer

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers. Simply by organizing these data, they can easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly inferred?

This is going to be hell of a question if someone doesn't get to the point that how is utilizing direct-mail marketing is related to collecting the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers routinely. The other thing that may divert the focus is concentrating on pizzerias and other restaurants.

(A) Restaurants other than pizzerias  cannot easily identify  regular, average, and infrequent customers. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) For restaurants, utilizing direct-mail marketing  requires  the names, addresses, and menu selections  of at least some customers.  - WRONG. True actually but not necessarily an assumption.

(C) For restaurants,  the identification of regular, average, and infrequent customers generally involves  recording the names, addresses, and menu selections of at least some customers. - WRONG. True actually but not necessarily an assumption.

(D) Utilizing direct-mail marketing is  rarely beneficial  for restaurants that cannot identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. - WRONG. No argument is left altogether.

(E) Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers  always utilize direct-mail marketing  more effectively than do any other restaurants. - CORRECT.

Answer E.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, ad

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, ad

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards