PrepTest 141

Incorrect. This answer is very tempting! The argument does seem to fall into the anti-causal pattern—maybe the ad campaign worked and sales would have been even lower without it. However, there's no indication that the competing consultant is the one who made this ad campaign—in fact, the Consultant making the argument notes that she viewed the campaign and predicted it wouldn't work, but the company took the advice of a competing consultant. So it sounds like the company made an ad, and two consultants weighed in on it—not that the competing consultant made the ad. Additionally, the Consultant isn't just arguing that the campaign didn't work—instead, she argues it'd be unpopular and ill conceived. If anything, she's arguing that there was a causal relationship—and that the ad led to lower sales!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
MC: I predicted an ad wouldn't sell new products. The company's sales—especially of new products—were down. So I was right and the ad hurt sales.

Answer Anticipation:
More arguments about cause/effect relationships! Here, the Consultant brings up an ad campaign as a driver of sales. However, she doesn't present evidence just that the ad campaign didn't work—rather, she argues that it hurt sales! The campaign wasn't just bad—it was "unpopular" and "ill conceived." So the Consultant is stating that the ad campaign caused the poor sales, based on the ad being correlated with those bad sales figures. The correct answer should highlight one of the common reasons that a jump from a correlation to causation is flawed—either because of alternative causes, reversed causality, or the results just being coincidental.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that there may be another explanation for the poor sales—overall economic factors, not the ad. If the economy tanked this season, then that could explain the poor sales even if the ad were effective.

Key Takeaway:
At their heart, all correlation/causation flaws are about alternative causes. Without ruling out all other potential factors, there's always the chance that the correlation is coincidental, or itself an effect of another cause. Whenever you see language implying either correlation or causation, you should start to think of alternatives!

Incorrect. While the argument does state that new products are selling especially poorly, that's to highlight that the Consultant's prediction that the ad campaign would be "ineffective in promoting new products" came to fruition. It doesn't assume that new products should outsell old products, just that both new and old products aren't selling well.

Incorrect. The argument is about ineffective advertisements, not effective ones, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no conditional logic underlying this argument, so this answer is out of scope.