Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store di

Question

Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store displays to catch customers’ attention. According to a marketing study, today’s busy shoppers have less time for coupon-clipping and pay little attention to direct-mail advertising; instead, they make two-thirds of their buying decisions on the spot at the store.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires?

(A) Companies are increasingly using in-store displays to catch customers’ attention.

(B) Coupons and direct-mail advertising were at one time more effective means of boosting sales of merchandise than they are now.

(C) In-store displays are more likely to influence buying decisions made on the spot at the store than to influence other buying decisions.

(D) In-store displays that catch customers’ attention increase the likelihood that customers will decide on the spot to buy the company’s merchandise.

(E) Many of today’s shoppers are too busy to pay careful attention to in-store displays.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Any time I see the word “should,” I strongly suspect that it indicates the conclusion of the argument. You’re telling me I should do something? Oh yeah, why  should  I? The rest of the argument will usually support the “should.”

This argument doesn’t let me down. The reason why I  should  use an in-store display is that 1) “today’s in-store shoppers have less time for coupon-clipping,” and 2) “pay little attention to direct-mail marketing,” and 3) “make two-thirds of their buying decisions on the spot.” Okay, so those are the reasons why I  should  use an in-store display.

Those are decent reasons. But do you think I am convinced? No, of course I am not **** convinced. I am  never  convinced, if I can help it. The LSAT’s arguments are usually flawed, or silly, or incomplete. This one isn’t terrible, but it’s far from proven. So I object:

I  object  because no evidence has been provided that anybody pays one shred of attention to in-store displays. The fact that shoppers don’t look at coupons or direct-mail doesn’t prove that they  will  pay attention to in-store displays. In fact, it could be argued in exactly the opposite direction! As in, “Consumers are so saturated with coupons and direct mail that they ignore all advertising.”
 
  I  object  because the fact that consumers make two-thirds of their buying decisions on the spot doesn’t prove that an in-store display will work, either. Maybe consumers make their decisions solely on price, or packaging, or through eenie-meenie-miney-mo. It is possible that the display might be totally irrelevant to on-the-spot purchases, until evidence is provided otherwise.
 
  I  object  because even if in-store displays are effective, there might be reasons not to use in-store displays. For example, maybe you have to pay Safeway an exorbitant amount of money if you want to take up their precious shelf space with in-store displays. So maybe the displays work, but are not worth it in the long run. (I don’t like this objection as much as the first two, because the argument said “companies wishing to boost sales,” rather than “companies wishing to increase profits.” So this objection probably doesn’t apply to the specific argument being made—costs are probably irrelevant.)

We’re asked to find an assumption that the argument requires, which makes this a Necessary Assumption question. Necessary Assumption questions are closely linked to Weaken questions. I think the correct answer might be a  defense  against one of our objections above. Something like, “People do pay attention to in-store displays” would defend against our first and second objections, above. And I think that’s a Necessary Assumption of the argument, because if it is  not  true, then the argument would fail. Let’s see:

A) Nah, it doesn’t matter what other companies are actually doing. All that matters is whether I should use the displays.

B) Doesn’t matter whether coupons and mailers used to be more effective. Who cares?

C) Sounds like a trap to me. In-store displays don’t have to be effective  only  for in-store purchases, or more effective for in-store purchases than other types of purchases. That’s not necessary. What’s necessary is that they have to work, at least a little, for on-the-spot purchases. This answer choice proves too much, and is therefore not necessary.

D) Yes. This is what we predicted. This is necessary, because if it is untrue the argument would be totally destroyed.

E) This would actually weaken the argument, so there is no way it is an assumption of the argument.

Our answer is D.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

The author suggests that using in-store displays is a superior way to boost sales of merchandise than the traditional direct-mail advertising. The evidence she uses to substantiate her claim is that two-thirds of shoppers' buying decisions are made on the spot at the store. Does that guarantee that in-store displays represent a better marketing tactic? Only if we assume that shoppers (1) notice the in-store displays; (2) aren't put off or distracted by them; and (3) make a decision consistent with the message conveyed by the displays. What if the displays are so bad that people make the conscious choice to stay away from purchasing the advertised products? Or so inconspicuous that nobody notices them in the first place? The author's recommendation would certainly not be as useful.

By noticing the missing link between buying decisions and in-store displays, you should look for a Supporter Assumption that connects the two.

Answer choice (A): The argument does not depend on the assumption that companies are increasingly using in-store displays. The assumption is only that they work to boost sales. The frequency with which in-store displays are used is irrelevant to this conclusion, as it is merely a consequence of their presumed efficacy.

Answer choice (B): The historical efficacy of direct-mail advertising is irrelevant to a conclusion about what companies should do in the future. Furthermore, the conclusion is based on the explicit premise that customers no longer pay attention to direct-mail advertising. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): While this answer choice strengthens the argument by connecting in-store displays to buying decisions made on the spot, the conclusion does not rely on the effectiveness of such displays on this vis-→-vis other buying decisions. This answer choice simply goes too far. Try the Assumption Negation technique: what if in-store displays are just as likely (or even more likely) to influence other buying decisions than to influence decisions made on the spot? This would not weaken the conclusion, as long as the displays are still more effective in influencing decisions made on the spot relative to direct-mail advertising. Since the logical opposite of answer choice (C) does not necessarily weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is not essential to the conclusion and is therefore incorrect.

Beware of well-written decoy answers that strengthen the conclusion of an Assumption question but do not represent an element necessary for that conclusion to be true.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.  If in-store displays did not increase the likelihood that customers will decide to buy merchandise on the spot, the author's recommendation would be worthless. Therefore, answer choice (D) provides an element necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice does the exact opposite of what is needed and weakens the author's recommendation by suggesting that shoppers may not even pay attention to in-store displays.

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.

Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store di

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

Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store di

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