An advertising agency, in its first campaign, used an animal character as a mascot for a breakfast cereal targeted at children. In an analysis of the campaign, it was found that the image of the animal was a major influence on the excellent sales that the product created. Faced with its next challenge - creating a campaign for a women's fashion chain - the agency would be well-advised to repeat its previous tactics.
The argument is flawed primarily because the author
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The plan of action is the use of an animal character in an advertising campaign. This answer choice is incorrect because the use of an animal character has been verified - it was used in the breakfast cereal campaign, and produced good results.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]If a certain method works for solving a particular problem, there is no reason why not to use it again. However, reusing a successful method requires that the same conditions apply. Do the same conditions apply in both the first and the second campaigns in this argument?
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The second premise tells us that the campaign using the animal character was successful. We do not need any other information or detailed findings about how this success was calculated.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]Although the argument does not include the influence of competing agencies, this cannot be considered a flaw. It may be beneficial to refer to what other agencies are doing, but this would only be an added bonus to the formation of an advertising strategy - it is not vital in this argument. Remember, you should be looking for an actual mistake, or flaw, in the author's thinking.
Bravo!
[[snippet]]An analogy should be formed when comparing similar events. In this argument, the author creates an analogy between a campaign aimed at children and a campaign aimed at women. It is illogical to suggest the use of a particular advertising strategy for a women's fashion chain based on the fact that it worked for a children's product.