PrepTest 119

Incorrect. This answer doesn't tie into direct-mail marketing, so it can't justify a conclusion about that without a separate premise that talks about that type of marketing.

Incorrect. This answer is about using direct-mail marketing, not more effectively using it, so it falls short of justifying the conclusion. Also, the stimulus notes that pizzerias are the only restaurants that "routinely" record this information—so other restaurants could have it for "at least some" customers, and thus this answer doesn't necessarily differentiate between pizzerias and other types of restaurants.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer doesn't talk about direct-mail marketing, so it can't fully justify a conclusion about the effectiveness of using that type of marketing.

Incorrect. There's no indication that other restaurants can't identify regular/average/infrequent customers—just that they can't do it by the same means as pizzerias. As such, this answer doesn't deal with an established difference between the restaurants, and so it can't justify a conclusion that compares pizzerias to others.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Pizzerias keep complete customer records; other restaurants don't
This allows pizzerias to identify customers by frequency
Therefore - Pizzerias are better able to use direct-mail marketing than other businesses

Answer Anticipation:
Always be on the lookout for common forms of logic in arguments on the exam! They tend to point us in the right direction. Here, the conclusion is very much a comparison between pizzerias and other restaurants, so we should focus on this comparison.

The conclusion states that pizzerias are able to use direct-mail marketing more effectively than any other restaurants. To establish that, the premises would need to establish a difference between pizzerias and other restaurants, and connect that to more effectively using this type of marketing.

The premises do establish a difference between pizzerias and other restaurants—pizzerias are the only restaurants to routinely record names, addresses, and orders of their customers. However, it fails to establish that this means they can more effectively use direct-mail marketing. As such, the correct answer should make that connection.

Note that we should avoid answers that talk about identifying regular/average/infrequent customers. Why? Because while we know that pizzerias can do this with the information that only they collect, there's no indication that the other restaurants can't also do this with other information. Pizzerias can do this easily with the information they collect; it doesn't say they can do it more easily. Unlike the first premise, this second one doesn't make a comparison, so it's not going to be what the correct answer uses to justify a comparative conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
Pizzerias are established as being the only restaurants that routinely record these pieces of information. This answer, therefore, establishes that they can always more effectively utilize direct-mail marketing compared to other restaurants. Since it establishes the conclusion is true, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Comparative logic is one of the most commonly tested types of logic on the LSAT. When a conclusion brings up a comparison, focus on that element, and see how the premises play into the comparison.