Can you guys pls help me with negation technique.

Sure!

The evidence is that the exotic prints are not more expensive to make and that they sold at a much higher price and their seems to be strong demand for these exotic prints.

The conclusion is "de los Santos could earn a higher profit per unit by producing a greater percentage of his sneakers in such prints."



Let's negate each answer and the correct answer is the one that directly weakens the conclusion. So the answer that - when negated - challenges the idea that de los Santos can make more profit by selling more exotic prints.

To negate you first negate any quantifier (some, all, none, etc.) So if the answer says "all" you change it to "not all."

If there is no quantifier then you negate the main verb. So that "did sell" becomes "did NOT sell."

Ready? Here we go.

A)The designers who compete most directly with de los Santos will not produce similar lines of limited-edition sneakers in the near future.

Take out the "not" and the answer becomes "The designers who compete most directly with de los Santos will produce similar lines of limited-edition sneakers in the near future. What if they do? Does this mean that de los Santos should not produce more of his exotic prints? This is not the correct answer.


B)Consumers' willingness to pay higher prices for the exotic sneakers was not influenced by the relative scarcity of those sneakers.

Again, take out the "not" and you get "Consumers' willingness to pay higher prices for the exotic sneakers was influenced by the relative scarcity of those sneakers. This directly contradicts the conclusion, since the shoes will not be as scarce and this means consumers will not pay as much for them. This is the correct answer.

C)De los Santos's customer base is not shifting in the direction of younger consumers who prefer bolder styles.

Again remove the word "not" and you get "De los Santos's customer base is shifting in the direction of younger consumers who prefer bolder styles. So what if the base is shifting to younger consumers who prefer bolder styles? This might strengthen the conclusion and that is not what we want.

D)De los Santos's sneakers are not priced substantially higher than those of the designers who compete most directly with him.

Remove "not" and you get "De los Santos's sneakers are priced substantially higher than those of the designers who compete most directly with him." What if they are priced higher? People have shown that they are willing to pay so this does not harm the conclusion.

E)The workmanship of de los Santos's sneakers is NOT of such high quality that it is impossible for lower-budget shoemakers to produce counterfeit versions of them.

In this case we add the word "not." Again this is not the correct answer because producing counterfeit versions is not directly related to the profits on these exotic shoes.

Hi David ,

Thanks a lot for your explaination , helps me a lot.

I also prefer Letter "B"

I was a little bit confused why not D? Anyone can explain?