Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Contemporary internet shopping conjures a perfect storm of choice anxiety. Research has consistently held that people who are presented with a few options make better, easier decisions than those presented with many Helping consumers figure out what to buy amid an endless sea of choice online has become a cottage industry unto itself. Many brands and retailers now wield marketing buzzwords such as curation, differentiation, and discovery as they attempt to sell an assortment of stuff targeted to their ideal customer. Companies find such shoppers through the data gold mine of digital advertising, which can catalog people by gender, income level, personal interests, and more. Since Americans have lost the ability to sort through the sheer volume of the consumer choices available to them, a ghost now has to be in the retail machine, whether it's an algorithm, an influencer, or some snazzy ad tech to help a product follow you around the internet. Indeed, choice fatigue is one reason so many people gravitate toward lifestyle influencers on Instagram-the relentlessly chic young moms and perpetually vacationing 20-somethings-who present an aspirational worldview, and then recommend the products and services that help achieve it.

For a relatively new class of consumer-products start-ups, there's another method entirely. Instead of making sense of a sea of existing stuff, these companies claim to disrupt stuff as Americans know it. Casper (mattresses), Glossier (makeup), Away (suitcases), and many others have sprouted up to offer consumers freedom from choice: The companies have a few aesthetically pleasing and supposedly highly functional options, usually at mid-range prices. They're selling nice things, but maybe more importantly, they're selling a confidence in those things, and an ability to opt out of the stuff rat race.

One-thousand-dollar mattresses and $300 suitcases might solve choice anxiety for a certain tier of consumer, but the companies that sell them, along with those that attempt to massage the larger stuff economy into something navigable, are still just working within a consumer market that's broken in systemic ways. The presence of so much stuff in America might be more valuable if it were more evenly distributed, but stuff's creators tend to focus their energy on those who already have plenty. As options have expanded for people with disposable income, the opportunity to buy even basic things such as fresh food or quality diapers has contracted for much of America's lower classes.

For start-ups that promise accessible simplicity, their very structure still might eventually push them toward overwhelming variety. Most of these companies are based on hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital, the investors of which tend to expect a steep growth rate that can't be achieved by selling one great mattress or one great sneaker. Casper has expanded into bedroom furniture and bed linens. Glossier, after years of marketing itself as no-makeup makeup that requires little skill to apply, recently launched a full line of glittering color cosmetics. There may be no way to opt out of stuff by buying into the right thing.

All of the following, IF TRUE, would weaken the author's claims EXCEPT:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 2

Need to find what the author argues, then see which option supports or stays neutral.

From passage: "Research has consistently held that people who are presented with a few options make better, easier decisions than those presented with many"

Author's main claims -> Choice anxiety is real -> Fewer options = better decisions -> Companies like Casper succeed by offering limited choices -> Even these companies eventually expand due to investor pressure


Elimination Process:

šŸ”“ Option 1 -> contradicts core claim -> Says more options = more empowerment, but passage clearly states fewer options = better decisions

šŸ”“ Option 3 -> contradicts influencer claim -> Author says people gravitate toward lifestyle influencers because of choice fatigue, but this shows companies using influencers perform worse

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> contradicts inequality claim -> Author says more options help rich while hurting poor, but this suggests more options help poor through lower prices

🟢 Option 2 -> actually supports author -> Companies with fewer options doing better aligns perfectly with author's argument that limited choices work better


The confusion here: Students might think Option 2 contradicts something because it compares "fewer options" vs "curated products." But look closer -> both are actually strategies the author mentions as responses to choice anxiety. The author talks about companies offering "freedom from choice" and "curation" as solutions.

Option 2 saying fewer-option companies outperform curated-option companies doesn't weaken anything -> it just shows one solution works better than another, which supports the main point that limiting choices helps consumers.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question