The government of Penglai, an isolated island, proposed eliminating outdoor adverting except for small signs of standard shape that identify places of business. Some island merchants protested that the law would reduce the overall volume of business in Penglai, pointing to a report done by the government indicating that in every industry the Penglai businesses that used outdoor advertising had a larger market share than those that did not.
Which one of the following describes an error of reasoning in the merchants’ argument?
(A)
presupposing that there are
no good reasons for restricting the use of outdoor advertising in Penglai - WRONG. A valid counter with a reasoning is already given.
(B) assuming without giving justification that the outdoor advertising
increased market share by some means other than by diverting trade from competing businesses - CORRECT. Whether the content of survey would always be true or not is questionable.
(C) ignoring the question of whether the
government’s survey of the island could be objective - WRONG. Like D only. Not the core of the passage.
(D)
failing to establish whether the market-share advantage enjoyed by businesses employing outdoor advertising was precisely
proportionate to the amount of advertising - WRONG. The establishment was for counter argument to the govt's proposal. Whether this counter argument's reasoning is good or bad is altogether a different scope that the passage is not concerned with.
(E) disregarding the possibility that the government’s proposed restrictions are
unconstitutional - WRONG. Irrelevant.
Answer B.