Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyRuling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

Last month, a local restaurant replaced the fast-paced pop music playing in its dining area with slower classical music. Since this change, the average amount of money spent by each table has increased by 15 percent. The restaurant manager concludes that the switch to classical music is the primary cause of this increase in average spending.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the manager's argument depends?

  1. The restaurant did not raise its menu prices at the time it switched to classical music.Answer
  2. B
    Any restaurant that replaces pop music with classical music will see an increase in average customer spending.
  3. C
    The total number of customers dining at the restaurant did not decrease after the music change.
  4. D
    Customers generally feel more relaxed when listening to classical music than when listening to pop music.
  5. E
    Other restaurants in the same neighborhood that play classical music also experience high average spending per table.

Answer

The restaurant did not raise its menu prices at the time it switched to classical music.
The manager concludes that there is a causal relationship between the new classical music and the 15 percent increase in average spending per table. For this causal claim to hold, the manager must assume that no other simultaneous change caused the spending increase. If the restaurant had simply raised the prices of its food and drinks at the exact same time it changed the music, the average bill per table would naturally go up, even if customers ordered the exact same amount of food. Therefore, ruling out a menu price increase is a logically necessary 'defender' assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and the premise of the argument.
Premise: The music changed and average spending increased by 15%. Conclusion: The music change caused the spending increase.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to finding its logical gaps.
2
Determine the type of reasoning being used.
The manager is using causal reasoning, assuming that because two things happened at the same time, one caused the other.
Identifying causal reasoning alerts you to look for alternative causes or confounders.
3
Anticipate what a 'Defender' assumption must do in this context.
A necessary assumption must defend the conclusion by ruling out a plausible alternative explanation for why average spending per table increased.
To prove that music was the primary cause, the author implicitly assumes that other obvious causes are not responsible.
4
Apply the negation test to the correct option.
If the restaurant DID raise its menu prices by 15%, spending per table would automatically increase, completely destroying the claim that the music caused the increase.
The negation test confirms whether an assumption is truly necessary for the argument to survive.

Key Concept

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Rate this question

Topics

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

More questions from this topic