Is This "Not" a Trick That Often Appears in LR? (PT 19) Forum

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[Audio Technica Guy]

No, it's not that it will completely kill the chances by offering the rebate, it's that the rebate has no effect on whether they buy the product or not.

The original argument basically rules out that the rebate has any effect on people who already buy the product, but the flaw is that the original argument didn't consider it's effect on people who aren't buying the product currently. Answer choice C addresses that flaw by saying "yeah, you know that possibility that the rebate might effect those who aren't buying it without the rebate, well that doesn't happen" thus ruling out an obstacle to the conclusion.

I don't know what you mean by the "not trick" but this type of reasoning comes into play a lot of strengthen questions. The original argument is basically solid except for a possible scenario that would kill it, the correct answer rules out that possibility.

Here the argument rules out that the rebate will effect sales to those buying the product.
The flaw is that it doesn't consider the effect that the rebate might have on those that currently aren't buying the product. With a rebate they might buy it.
The answer strengthens the conclusion by saying "no, that doesn't happen"

[MagnumLifeStyle]

.

[Audio Technica Guy]

ohhhhhhh,

Thanks for your quick response Audio Technica Guy.

So you're basically saying that (C) strengthens the argument by ruling out the possibility that the rebate might attract customers who might not use the product, correct?

yes, that's exactly right.