PrepTest 125

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
National campaigns have been promoting the reading of fiction, but bookstores are seeing declining profits from fiction books, so the campaigns are failing.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two elements in this stimulus that suggest common flaws.

The first is that the conclusion is based on "[s]tatistics" from the NBA (not that NBA). Statistics suggest that a study was done to look at the numbers, and studies suggest both a sampling flaw and a correlation/causation flaw.

However, before we dig into them, we need to discuss the other element, as it impacts the possibility of a correlation/causation flaw. Here, the conclusion is anti-causal—it states that one thing isn't working, or, in other words, doesn't have an effect. Since this argument falls into this pattern, we shouldn't think about a correlation/causation flaw and instead think about flaws associated with an anti-causal conclusion.

Circling back to the sampling flaw, is the sample in this study representative of fiction book sales overall? Not necessarily—it looked only at bookstores. Maybe fiction sales through other avenues have increased more than they've declined at bookstores. Any answer highlighting the possibility that sales at bookstores aren't representative of overall fiction sales will weaken this argument.

As to the anti-causal flaw, the issue there is always that things could have been even worse without the cause—here, the campaigns. Maybe the campaigns are getting people to read more fiction, but other trends are moving against that and decreasing fiction reads overall. Any answer that brings up this possibility will likewise weaken the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with the sampling flaw, suggesting that fiction sales may be up overall because of a "substantial" increase in mail order sales. If that's the case, then the conclusion that the campaigns are failing might be wrong, so the argument is weakened.

Key Takeaway:
Anti-causal conclusions are generally flawed in that they don't consider the possibility that the cause may have had the desired effect, but other trends outweighed that effect. In other words, things would have been even worse without the supposed cause. While this didn't end up being relevant in this question, it's important to note this pattern for future questions, as it's a relatively tricky concept!

Incorrect. First, this answer is both relative ("most") and about the wrong term (profit instead of revenue). For both reasons, it doesn't weaken the argument.

Incorrect. Biographies aren't fiction, so it's unclear what impact this answer would have on the argument. Even if we assume that cheap biographies would have an impact on fiction sales as people opt for the former over the latter, that would line up with the argument, not weaken it.

Incorrect. Similar to (C), this answer deals with the wrong kinds of books. If it brought up a drastic increase in people borrowing fiction books from the library, that could weaken the argument by suggesting people are reading more fiction even if they're not buying it.

Incorrect. The argument notes that the campaigns to get people to read more fiction are "national" campaigns, so foreign readers are out of scope.