Loading...
According to a survey of subscribers to Systems magazine, only 30 percent of all merchandise orders placed by subscribers in response to advertisements in the magazine last year were placed by subscribers under age 35. According to a subsequent tabulation by Systems advertisers, however, most of the merchandise orders placed in response to advertisements in Systems last year were placed by people under age 35. Therefore, either the survey or the tabulation was inaccurate.
Which of the following poses a challenge that points to the inadequacy of the argument as presented?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| According to a survey of subscribers to Systems magazine, only 30 percent of all merchandise orders placed by subscribers in response to advertisements in the magazine last year were placed by subscribers under age 35. |
|
| According to a subsequent tabulation by Systems advertisers, however, most of the merchandise orders placed in response to advertisements in Systems last year were placed by people under age 35. |
|
| Therefore, either the survey or the tabulation was inaccurate. |
|
The argument presents two conflicting pieces of data about the same thing - age breakdown of orders from Systems magazine ads. First, we get survey data showing only 30% from under-35 subscribers. Then we get advertiser data showing most orders came from people under 35. The author concludes this contradiction means one study is wrong.
Either the subscriber survey or the advertiser tabulation contains inaccurate information.
The reasoning assumes that if two studies about the same thing give different results, one must be wrong. The logic is: Survey says A, Advertisers say B, A contradicts B, therefore either A or B is inaccurate.
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces belief in the conclusion that either the survey or tabulation was inaccurate
The argument compares two specific groups: 'subscribers under 35' (survey) vs 'people under 35' (tabulation). The conclusion assumes these should match perfectly.
Look for scenarios that explain how both studies could be accurate despite appearing contradictory. Focus on differences in scope, methodology, or populations studied that would make the conflicting results actually compatible.
This tells us about subscribers who never order merchandise, but we're trying to explain the age breakdown of people who DO order merchandise. Whether non-ordering subscribers are mostly over 35 doesn't help explain the apparent contradiction in the ordering data between the survey and tabulation.
Even if the proportion of under-35 subscribers increased substantially, this doesn't resolve the contradiction. We'd still expect the survey and tabulation to show similar results if they're measuring the same population. This doesn't explain why we'd see such different age breakdowns in the same time period.
This suggests people see ads but buy in stores instead of ordering directly. However, both the survey and tabulation are specifically about merchandise orders placed "in response to advertisements" - so this choice is talking about a different behavior entirely and doesn't address our contradiction.
Whether the ads are designed for under-35s doesn't explain why we'd get conflicting data about who actually orders. If anything, this might support the tabulation showing more under-35 orders, but it doesn't resolve the contradiction or show how both studies could be accurate.
This is our answer! This explains how both studies could be accurate by revealing they're measuring different populations. The survey looked only at subscribers, while the tabulation looked at all orders (including from people who buy the magazine at newsstands rather than subscribing). If newsstand buyers are predominantly under 35 while subscribers are mostly over 35, then both results make perfect sense - no inaccuracy required.