Question:

That sales can be increased by the presence of sunlight within a store has been shown by the experience of the only Savefast department store with a large skylight. The skylight allows sunlight into half of the store, reducing the need for artificial light. The rest of the store uses only artificial light. Since the store opened two years ago, the departments on the sunlit side have had substantially higher sales than the other departments.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Show Hint

A very effective way to strengthen a causal argument (X causes Y) is to provide evidence that in a situation where X is absent, Y is also absent. This helps to isolate X as the true cause.
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • On particularly cloudy days, more artificial light is used to illuminate the part of the store under the skylight.
  • When the store is open at night, the departments in the part of the store under the skylight have sales that are no higher than those of other departments.
  • Many customers purchase items from departments in both parts of the store on a single shopping trip.
  • Besides the skylight, there are several significant architectural differences between the two parts of the store.
  • The departments in the part of the store under the skylight are the departments that generally have the highest sales in other stores in the Savefast chain.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The argument makes a causal claim: sunlight causes an increase in sales. The evidence is that the sunlit half of a store has higher sales than the non-sunlit half. To strengthen a causal argument, we can either rule out alternative causes or show that when the cause is absent, the effect is also absent.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The argument's weakness is that another factor could be responsible for the higher sales in the sunlit section.
- (A) This is irrelevant to the connection between sunlight and sales.
- (B) This provides a powerful control case. At night, the proposed cause (sunlight) is removed. The statement says that when the cause is removed, the effect (higher sales) also disappears. The sales in both sections become equal. This strongly implies that sunlight was the factor responsible for the difference during the day.
- (C) This is irrelevant and does not help distinguish why one section's sales are higher.
- (D) This weakens the argument by introducing alternative causes (the architectural differences) for the sales discrepancy.
- (E) This seriously weakens the argument by providing a strong alternative cause: the departments in the sunlit section are inherently more popular and would have higher sales regardless of the lighting.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (B) strengthens the argument the most by showing that the effect vanishes when the proposed cause is removed.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Logical Reasoning

View More Questions

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions