Onward through Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT. Here, we're presented with an incomplete argument. It basically says "people are more likely to change their mind about something they dislike if they are linked in advertisements with pictures, rather than just prose, to things about which they have positive attitudes. Therefore, advertisers are likely to ________." The question says "Which one of the following most logically completes the argument." So our task is to fill in the blank. Hmm. Let's think for a second. What's something people dislike? Well, some people dislike Obama. Others dislike Romney. So what would an advertiser do, if he was trying to change your mind? Fairly straightforward, according to the argument above. All you have to do is this:
Show a picture of Obama cheers-ing with a beer!
Definitely works for me. Or, you know, this:
Show a picture of Romney happily holding a visibly terrified baby!
OK, maybe that one one didn't work out so well. But you get the point.
According to the argument, advertisers can get you to change your mind about something by associating a picture of something you like with the thing you hate.
With that, I'm pretty sure we've already answered the question. Let's see:
A) Huh? Nah... the point of the argument wasn't "don't use words." The point of the argument was "use pictures in addition to words." Those aren't exactly the same thing, so this answer is probably a trap.
B) Again, no. The point wasn't "advertisers should choose products that are photogenic." The point was "associate happy pictures, not just words, with whatever ugly thing you are trying to pump up."
C) This answer makes no sense, because both TV and magazines have pictures. Next please!
D) This is probably a good idea... "hey! Look how ugly our opposition is!"... but it's not the point of the argument. I sure hope E makes sense...
E) Yes, exactly. If you want to attract my vote, show Obama with a beer. I like beer. Mmmm... beer. Our answer is E, because it's the best description of the overall point of the argument. Too easy!