Q21 - Pizzerias are the only restaurants

[noah]

A sufficient assumption question! Let's get to the core:

Pizzerias only ones that get data (+ Pizzerias can easily ID customers with this data) --> Pizzerias utilize direct mail more effectively than other restaurants

We're looking for a sufficient assumption to completely fill the gap. So, what's the gap? There's a couple of fishy issues (anchovies?) about how pizzerias are the only ones that can get the data, but the argument doesn't say they're the only ones that can ID customers. Maybe other restaurants can ID customers through another means? Another gap I noticed is whether the pizzerias will actually use that data to ID customers (the stimulus says they can, but does it mean they do?). But both of those gaps are within the premise, we want a gap that includes the conclusion. And there is one: who says that the data (and gaining the ability to ID customers) helps make direct mailings more effective? There's a big jump there. With sufficient assumption questions, we can expect the answer to play on a large gap and fill it fully.

The answer, (E), addresses that final gap in such a way to ensure that pizzerias are more effective at direct mailings. If we assume that restaurants that collect the data regularly are always more effective, we know that pizzerias are more effective, since they're the only ones that regularly collect the data! (E) even seals up the issue about whether the restaurants actually will use the data because "they always utilize it more effectively.."

(A) is tempting! However, even if the other restaurants can't easily ID the customers, perhaps they CAN do it (but with some extra effort). And, more importantly, perhaps these other restaurants can still do effective direct mailings. This doesn't connect to the conclusion.

(B) is also tempting! It seems to say that direct mailings can only be done by pizzerias. But it doesn't say that. It says that direct mailings require some data - and perhaps those other restaurants have some data (they just don't routinely collect the data).

(C) is initially suspcious since it hinges on something "generally requiring," but it's definitely wrong since it connects data and IDing customers, and doesn't connect to the conclusion about direct mailings. We already know that the pizzerias can ID the customers easily with the data, and, while ruling out other ways of IDing customers would be good, (C) doesn't do it because it says that IDing customers generally requires something, (and even if (C) did establish that only pizzerias can ID customers, we still wouldn't know IDing would make direct mailing mroe effective).

(D) is out of scope. We're not concerned with whether the direct mailing is beneficial. We want to know if pizzerias can do them more effectively.

By the way, a more formal approach might be this:

pizza --> routine data

To draw the conclusion, we want this chain: pizza --> routine data --> more effective mail.

We're missing routine data --> better mail, which (E) provides.

This is tricky (I had several teachers debating this!), because the wording of the first sentence feels like it establishes data --> pizza, but it actually establishes that as well as pizza (most) --> data. This is an awkward question in this respect, because it seems the LSAT is interpreting "routinely" to mean that most pizzerias collect the data.

This allows this thinking:

P: MOST pizzerias record data, and no other restaurants do
A (E): those that record data are always more effective at mail
C: Pizzerias as a whole are better than other groups of restaurants at utilizing mail

This is why I try to stay clear of automatized interpretations of logical statements!

[farhadshekib]

That was great, Noah.

Here is how I approached it.

With sufficient assumption/ justify the conclusion question types, if a new element is introduced in the conclusion (i.e. direct mail marketing), the correct answer must address that new element (or else how can it justify the conclusion, right?).

I was able to eliminate A and C because neither answer choice mentions "direct mail marketing".

B - I think this answer choice strengthen's the argument, that is, it provides reason to believe that Pizzerias CAN utilize direct mail marketing. However, it does not prove that Pizzerias use direct mail marketing MORE EFFECTIVELY than their competitors.

While their competitors may not routinely record the names, addresses and menu selections of their customers, they may, sometimes, record such information of "some customers". Therefore, B leaves open the possibility that their competitors may actually utilize direct mail marketing more effectively.

D - addresses the issue of "benefits" of direct mail marking - and thus does not address the "effectiveness" issue.

[noah]

Right on!

[goriano]

This is tricky (I had several teachers debating this!), because the wording of the first sentence feels like it establishes data --> pizza, but it actually establishes that as well as pizza (most) --> data. This is an awkward question in this respect, because it seems the LSAT is interpreting "routinely" to mean that most pizzerias collect the data.

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

The only interpretation I'm getting from the first sentence is

IF routinely record --> pizzeria. How does "most" play into this? I thought routinely was modifying the frequency of recording data, not the percentage of pizzerias that do such an activity.

[noah]

The only interpretation I'm getting from the first sentence is

IF routinely record --> pizzeria. How does "most" play into this? I thought routinely was modifying the frequency of recording data, not the percentage of pizzerias that do such an activity.

You're generally correct to see this statement this way. But, here the statement is a broad one about pizzerias. The way that I knew that I was not supposed to apply the usual "only" interpretation is that the premises and conclusion are both statements about pizzerias.

First, we learn that pizzerias routinely record names...and that nobody else does. (Does EVERY single pizzeria do it? Who knows, it doesn't matter - we know that pizzerias, as a whole, routinely do it. If I routinely do yoga, do I do it EVERY day?)

Then we learn that this allows pizzerias (implied) to do some fancy market dissection.

Finally, in the conclusion, we learn that pizzerias use some marketing technique better than anyone else.

So, it's an argument about pizzerias, and whether the actions they do--that only they do--make them better than other restaurants in a specific way.

As I mentioned above, those who robotically thought "a-ha! 'only' means it's the necessary part of the..." were punished here. Understanding what the argument means proved better. The "only" really was in place to keep the other restaurants from doing it--so, it did indicate the necessary part of a conditional statement--but you also had to realize that X's routinely do Y was a premise as well, and that we were to consider pizzerias as a unit.

I hope that clears it up. If you're looking for a rule, it'll be tough to discern one from this question.

[schweizeroo]

I understand "the only" to be equivalent to "if and only if." Otherwise E would not be sufficient to establish the conclusion. One would need to assume that having some or most pizzarias routinely recording data would qualify pizzarias in general to be better utilizers of direct-mail, which would assume a fallacious method for comparison that the whole has a trait specific to certain members within its entire set. If this method of comparison was used, and is the standard for this argument, then it would need to be explicitly stated. Otherwise, there could be some pizzarias that do not record data and that do no utilize direct-mail better that could be out-direct-mailed by some other restaurants that use direct mail better than pizza shops that do not routinely record data.
Maybe the word "routinely" tripped people up, since it might seem to be applying to pizzarias in general. For instance, when I go to pizzerias in general, I routinely observe they record customer data, differentiating the pizzaerias as a set of restaurants from all other sets of restaurants, because no other set of restaurants contains members that routinely record data. But, properly understood in this argument, and necessary for this question to answered by assuming E, one must read "routinely" as meaning that all pizzerias follow this same routine of data collection, and, that if a restaurant routinely collects data then they must be a pizzeria.

Tricky on, I know.

[timmydoeslsat]

Welcome to the forum, schweizeroo.

I would caution you on the interpretation of "the only" to imply a biconditional situation (if and only if).

The only way to win the World Series is through great pitching.

Win WS ---> GP

We can still have great pitching and not win the World Series. So by that fact, we do not have a biconditional situation.

Answer choice E can be established as a sufficient assumption for this argument.

Restaurant that routinely records info of customers ---> Pizzeria
____________________________________________________
Pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants.

Look at answer choice E. What do we know if you are a restaurant that routinely records info of customers? You must be a pizzeria. This will allow us to infer that pizzerias will utilize direct-mail marketing (bolded in the conclusion to show the importance of a new term in the conclusion and not available in the evidence) more effectively than other restaurants.