PrepTest 151

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Big Pharma spends promotional money primarily through doctor visits. Last year, they upped their budget. However, the average number of visits per representative decreased substantially. Therefore, it must not have worked and physicians were less likely to take a meeting with a sales rep.

Answer Anticipation:
The author here jumps between a stat (fewer visits) to an explanation (doctors less willing to have visits). Whenever an author posits an explanation, it's important to think about alternative explanations.

Here, could there be another explanation for the lower number of visits, one that allows for the visits to still be productive? Sure. Maybe the sales reps were able to stay longer at each visit, thus preventing the need for a follow-up. After all, we're told the number of visits per representative went down. If there were more reps, there could have been the same number of visits overall.

Answer Explanation:
Right off the bat, we're given an alternative. The author believes the lower number of visits shows the increase in spending was counterproductive, but this answer raises the possibility that the lower number of visits per rep was a factor of having more representatives spending more time with the doctors, which could very well have increased profits.

Key Takeaway:
When an explanation is presented as the conclusion in a Weaken question, the correct answer will frequently present an alternative explanation.

Incorrect. The stimulus never states that fewer physicians received visits from the representatives. Picking this answer reflects a jump the author of the question tried to get you to make—mainly, thinking that fewer visits per rep would necessarily lead to fewer doctors visited. But, as stated before, if the companies spent that budget on more representatives, coverage could have stayed the same.

Incorrect. This answer rules out another method by which Big Pharma could have spent money to drive up sales. In an argument that was trying to find the cause of an increase in sales, this would serve as a strengthener. In an argument about whether one particular method was effective, information about a different method is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to lead you down a math path, working to figure out how averages and multiple visits would work. Don't do it. This answer presents a fact that would be true in both years in question, so it's unclear how it could weaken an explanation for how effective a certain change was.

Incorrect. First, this answer relies on you making the false assumption that fewer visits per representative means fewer visits per doctor, which we've already discussed as fallacious. Second, even if we ignore that for a second, this answer aligns with the author's determination that the plan was ineffective.