Advertising by mail has become much less effective, with fewer consumers responding. Because consumers are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Advertising by mail has become much less effective, with fewer consumers responding. Because consumers are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of junk mail they receive, most discard almost all offers without considering them. Thus, an effective way for corporations to improve response rates would be to more carefully target the individuals to whom they mail advertising, thereby cutting down on the amount of junk mail each consumer receives.
Which of the following, if true, would most support this recommendation?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Advertising by mail has become much less effective, with fewer consumers responding. |
|
| Because consumers are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of junk mail they receive, most discard almost all offers without considering them. |
|
| Thus, an effective way for corporations to improve response rates would be to more carefully target the individuals to whom they mail advertising, thereby cutting down on the amount of junk mail each consumer receives. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by identifying a business problem (declining mail ad effectiveness), then explains what's causing this problem (consumer overwhelm from too much junk mail), and finally proposes a solution (better targeting to reduce junk mail volume).
Main Conclusion:
Companies can improve their mail advertising response rates by targeting their mailings more carefully to specific individuals.
Logical Structure:
This follows a problem-cause-solution structure. The author links the solution directly to addressing the identified cause: if too much junk mail causes people to ignore everything, then reducing junk mail through better targeting should make people more responsive again.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find new information that would increase our belief in the author's recommendation that targeted mailing will improve response rates
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about consumer behavior (discarding mail without consideration due to volume), causation (overwhelm leads to non-response), and a proposed solution (targeted mailing reducing overall junk mail volume)
Strategy
To strengthen this recommendation, we need evidence that supports the underlying logic: that reducing junk mail volume through targeting will actually lead to better response rates. We should look for information that confirms the relationship between mail volume and consumer behavior, or evidence that targeting works as proposed
'There are cost effective means by which corporations that currently advertise by mail could improve response rates.' This is too vague and doesn't specifically support the targeting recommendation. It just says there are cost-effective ways to improve response rates in general, but doesn't confirm that targeting is one of those ways. We need evidence that supports the specific recommendation about targeting, not just general statements about improvement possibilities.
'Many successful corporations are already carefully targeting the individuals to whom they mail advertising.' This tells us that successful companies use targeting, but it doesn't prove that targeting itself improves response rates. We can't assume causation from this correlation - maybe these companies are successful for other reasons. This doesn't strengthen the argument that targeting will solve the junk mail problem.
'Any consumer who, immediately after receiving an advertisement by mail, merely glances at it is very likely to discard it.' This actually describes the current problem rather than supporting the solution. It explains why mail advertising isn't working well, but doesn't provide any evidence that targeting will fix this issue. This reinforces the problem without validating the proposed remedy.
'Improvements in the quality of the advertising materials used in mail that is carefully targeted to individuals can improve the response rate for such mail.' This focuses on improving the quality of materials for targeted mail, but the argument's recommendation is about targeting itself, not about improving material quality. This introduces a different solution (better materials) rather than supporting the proposed solution (better targeting).
'Response rates to carefully targeted advertisements by mail are considerably higher, on average, than response rates to most other forms of advertising.' This directly supports the recommendation by providing evidence that targeted mail advertising is highly effective - even more so than other advertising methods. This validates that targeting works as a strategy and gives strong reason to believe the author's recommendation will succeed. If targeted mail beats other advertising forms, it certainly suggests it can improve current poor response rates.