Critical Reasoning: Boldface Type Questions
A marketing expert, consulted by the management of a major fashion brand, suggested that the use of an internationally famous sports professional as a model in the clothing company's upcoming advertising campaign would spur public interest and, consequently, increase sales. A significant implication of such a decision would be the conscious or unconscious association of the sports professional's personality with the fashion brand, as seen by the consumers. The management of the fashion brand would be ill-advised to employ the sports professional, however, as a poll conducted amongst the region's top sports analysts reveals that the team for which the sports professional in question plays is not likely to have success in the upcoming season.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The phrase position defended in the argument is another way of saying the argument's conclusion. Since the conclusion opposes the expert's suggestion to use a sports professional, we cannot say that it supports this suggestion. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]Although the first definition in this answer choice is correct, the second is not. We cannot say that the second portion disproves anything since it is only an opinion. Although it is the opinion of experts, it is still a prediction about events that may or may not occur in the future.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The first boldface portion is in opposition to the conclusion and, therefore, to the argument's position. For this reason, it cannot be referred to as the basis of the argument's position. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]While the first definition in this answer choice is correct, the second is incorrect. The two boldface portions actually contradict one another since the first supports the use of the sports professionals while the second gives us reason to believe that using the sports professional would not be such a good idea.
Superb!
[[snippet]]According to the breakdown, the argument's position is to not use the sports professional for the campaign. So, the first boldface portion is in opposition to this position while the second is a prediction made by certain sports analysts that supports the logic behind this position.
