For the skilled painter question, answer (D) could be even more definitively crossed out because it's comparing European painters to those across the world. Whereas the premise is European painters across time.
Don't understand the answer to last question: the statement B, if true, will lead to increase in leads since the lead sales is directly related to the turnover of the pencil. Statement E doesn't tell us anything if the sales will increase or not e.g. if the pencil sales don't increase because the selling price of the pencil is far far too high, it won't lead to an increase in sales of the pencil, thus no increase in sales of pencil lead... isn't it? However if the statement B was about lower expectations for sure it wouldn't increase the sales of pencil leads
Hi, Olivier! This is an official question, so we can definitely count on the reliability of the answers. Therefore, it's very important to convince yourself that B really doesn't strengthen at all, and that E really does. Let's see what's going on. First, note that we aren't trying to prove the argument correct; that is rarely an option on Strengthen questions. Rather, we are looking for an answer that makes the argument more convincing by helping to overcome one of the gaps in reasoning between the premises and conclusion. The premises tell us that lead sales are where the action is, but that this company isn't set up to compete on price. So does that mean that if the company requires the use of its own exclusive lead, sales of lead will go up? Why wouldn't consumers just choose another brand? E gives us a reason: these pencils are the best! It's the same reason that people who buy Apple products are willing to buy expensive proprietary cables and things like that. They like Apple products so much that they will put up with the expense and trouble! That's what E is saying. This in no way proves that people will buy the pencil; it just gives us a reason to agree that the plan might work, We don't need to speculate about whether the price of the pencil itself will be too high, because we don't know anything about that, and E does nothing to change our knowledge about price. As for B, this has no effect on the conclusion at all. The argument is saying that this plan in particular will drive lead sales up. If mechanical pencils become more popular, that might also drive lead sales up (although we don't know that for sure), but it would have nothing to do with this plan, so B doesn't support the conclusion. Also, we don't know from B whether anyone will buy this particular brand. If the plan doesn't work and no one wants to buy the company's leads, then an increase in pencil sales would probably just lead to sales for other companies.
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
For the skilled painter question, answer (D) could be even more definitively crossed out because it's comparing European painters to those across the world. Whereas the premise is European painters across time.
Don't understand the answer to last question: the statement B, if true, will lead to increase in leads since the lead sales is directly related to the turnover of the pencil.
Statement E doesn't tell us anything if the sales will increase or not e.g. if the pencil sales don't increase because the selling price of the pencil is far far too high, it won't lead to an increase in sales of the pencil, thus no increase in sales of pencil lead... isn't it? However if the statement B was about lower expectations for sure it wouldn't increase the sales of pencil leads
Hi, Olivier! This is an official question, so we can definitely count on the reliability of the answers. Therefore, it's very important to convince yourself that B really doesn't strengthen at all, and that E really does. Let's see what's going on. First, note that we aren't trying to prove the argument correct; that is rarely an option on Strengthen questions. Rather, we are looking for an answer that makes the argument more convincing by helping to overcome one of the gaps in reasoning between the premises and conclusion. The premises tell us that lead sales are where the action is, but that this company isn't set up to compete on price. So does that mean that if the company requires the use of its own exclusive lead, sales of lead will go up? Why wouldn't consumers just choose another brand? E gives us a reason: these pencils are the best! It's the same reason that people who buy Apple products are willing to buy expensive proprietary cables and things like that. They like Apple products so much that they will put up with the expense and trouble! That's what E is saying. This in no way proves that people will buy the pencil; it just gives us a reason to agree that the plan might work, We don't need to speculate about whether the price of the pencil itself will be too high, because we don't know anything about that, and E does nothing to change our knowledge about price. As for B, this has no effect on the conclusion at all. The argument is saying that this plan in particular will drive lead sales up. If mechanical pencils become more popular, that might also drive lead sales up (although we don't know that for sure), but it would have nothing to do with this plan, so B doesn't support the conclusion. Also, we don't know from B whether anyone will buy this particular brand. If the plan doesn't work and no one wants to buy the company's leads, then an increase in pencil sales would probably just lead to sales for other companies.