PrepTest 148

Incorrect. If anything, this answer calls the argument into question by suggesting that direct-mail ads can actually cause more car trips to the mall.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Direct-mail advertising lets people buy stuff without going to the store, thus reducing a source of pollution, and so it's not bad for the environment.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two jumps here that could be addressed by the correct answer to strengthen this argument.

First, the argument states that people are buying items online that would otherwise require the use of a car, but it doesn't establish that people are replacing their trips to the store with direct-mail purchases. It's possible that these purchases wouldn't otherwise happen—people are buying junk they otherwise wouldn't—and so it's not actually stopping car rides that never would have happened without the mailers. Answers that establish this shopping replaces shopping that would otherwise require a car instead of adding to that shopping will strengthen the argument.

Second, the argument raises one way in which direct-mail shopping is better for the environment (if we ignore the assumption above)—less pollutants in the air from cars. However, it doesn't rule out other negative environmental impacts—such as, for instance, pollutants from delivery trucks! Any answer that deals with the overall environmental impact of direct-mail shopping versus in-person shopping will similarly strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice addresses the assumption that direct-mail purchases replace other purchases. If the direct-mail purchases are on top of what a person would normally buy in-person, then they don't reduce the number of car trips. If, instead, it replaces purchases people would have made in person—as this answer states—then it is saving a car trip and thus reducing a source of pollution.

Key Takeaway:
Always be careful with an argument that doesn't directly state what it's clearly implying. Here, the argument relies on there being fewer trips to the mall. However, it doesn't say that people are shopping in-person less—it instead says that the products in the direct mailers "would otherwise require the use of a car." Dig into that to see if there's a flaw in the argument.

Incorrect. This answer suggests that direct-mail ads are creating new purchases, not replacing them, so if anything it cuts against the argument.

Incorrect. The ads being targeted doesn't speak to the environmental impact of the practice, or of whether these people are replacing trips to the mall with purchases from the mailers, so it doesn't affect the argument.

Incorrect. Without knowing if these purchases are growing consumer purchases or replacing consumer purchases, we can't tell the impact this answer has on the argument.