Critical Reasoning

Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo. Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the studies?
A. The effect noted in the studies is not limited to patrons who have credit cards.
B. Patrons who are under financial pressure from their credit-card obligations tend to tip less when presented with a restaurant bill on a tray with credit-card logo than when the tray has no logo.
C. In virtually all of the cases in the studies, the patrons who paid bills in cash did not possess credit cards.
D. In general, restaurant patrons who pay their bills in cash leave larger tips than do those who pay by credit card.
E. The percentage of restaurant bills paid with given brand of credit card increases when that credit card’s logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is prepared.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OA - B Not able to figure out why B is answer I went for A, can someone explain the reason behind it

I went with B.

The argument states that people are willing to tip more when they see a credit card logo, if they have a credit card because it reminds them that they can spend more.

Assumption: They can only spend more if their credit card is in good standing.

Hence, if their credit card is in bad standing, they will tip less because it reminds them of money they owe, not money they can spend.

B.

Maybe i have failed to understand the premise but

Premise - Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo.

People who pay by cash ( No mention whether they are credit card holders or not ) pay more when they see a credit card logo on tray in which the bill is presented


how can we go to say these people are credit hard holders?

kartik1979 wrote:
People who pay by cash ( No mention whether they are credit card holders or not ) pay more when they see a credit card logo on tray in which the bill is presented

how can we go to say these people are credit hard holders?

Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to ....available.

the psychologists theory does mention the credit card holders

I opted for A as well

Answer A directly contradicts the psychologist's result: if all people tip more when presented with a tip on a credit card tray, there is no direct correlation between credit card -> c.c. tray -> higher tip

B is the way to go, imo

bln123 wrote:Answer A directly contradicts the psychologist's result: if all people tip more when presented with a tip on a credit card tray, there is no direct correlation between credit card -> c.c. tray -> higher tip

B is the way to go, imo

Yeah, I agree. B's the way to go!

I don't get this.

If we go by the contrapositive logic as mentioned in Powerscore CR then we have

Credit Card -> More tip

Contrapositive:

Less Tip -> No Credit Card

but B says

Less Tip -> Credit Card

This is Mistaken Reversal and is deemed to be wrong according to Powerscore CR.

RadiumBall wrote:I don't get this.

If we go by the contrapositive logic as mentioned in Powerscore CR then we have

Credit Card -> More tip

Contrapositive:

Less Tip -> No Credit Card

but B says

Less Tip -> Credit Card

This is Mistaken Reversal and is deemed to be wrong according to Powerscore CR.

You have to read the passage a bit more carefully. Though the overt point might seem to be more tip/less tip based on credit cards, the real point of the passage is that the sight of a credit card logo creates some type of subconscious response that modifies spending habits.

What B is doing is verifying that there is a response due to seeing the credit card logo and providing further evidence of the theory being correct.

Thanks so this seems to be a different breed of strengthen CR, which strengthens by verfication.

Think about the argument as a two-connection cause & effect scenario.

(Visual of CC logo) --causes--> (feeling of more money power) --causes--> (more tip)

(B) shows that when (feeling of more money power) is absent, (more tip) is absent. i.e. when cause doesn't happen, effect doesn't happen. Thus it solidifies the second connection in the above two-connection cause & effect. Thus it strengthens, albeit not completely.

Hi gmatacer,

Does this mean that when we have a causal conclusion like this one - X---->Y Then Not(X)----> Not(Y) is also true., (if the conclusion is valid)

No, not necessarily true or false. It only solidifies the possibility of the conclusion.
The fact in B is - when cause(feel of money power) doesn't happen, effect(more tip) doesn't happen. This fact strengthens the conclusion.

If you have CR bible, see the section in which it describes how to strengthen a causal argument.