Critical Reasoning

Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people"Ÿs tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on GMAT and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers.
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on GMAT and violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.
OA is C

dv2020 -

I promised that I would help you with some strategy for strengthen and weaken questions.

I will mention some basics and then address this particular question after others have had a chance to weigh in (experts should really not jump in first with the answer, I feel).

As far as techniques for a strengthen question like this, I like to go for the main conclusion first and then work backwards to put the argument together.

So first, ask yourself, "what it is the main conclusion for this stimulus?"

Next, identify the most important evidence that is used in the stimulus in other words "why is the conclusion true?"

Now you want to think about what would link the evidence to the conclusion because in a strengthen question we are not actually strengthen the conclusion itself, but rather the link between the evidence and the conclusion.

Once you have an idea of what you are looking for you can examine the answer choices and your idea of the correct answer should be there.

But it all starts with correctly identifying the main conclusion.

I will go through this problem tomorrow using the steps I have noted above to see if it helps!

In the meantime I do not want to stop others from answering!

Deconstructing the argument we get

Conclusion : Advertisers withdrew from a certain publication on moral grounds
Premise : The publication changed from family to adult content
Premise: Advertisers are motivated by financial and moral considerations

We have to look at an answer choice which added to the argument with strengthen the conclusion

(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. ---> This looks more like a conclusion of the argument
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication. --->again something which follows the conclusion
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew. ---->If the sales increased by staying put with the publication means advertisers get more eyeballs if they stick hence dropping ads on this publication is justified on moral grounds, C looks the best so far
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on GMAT and violence. ---> Its a reaction of people to change again does nothing to the conclusion
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group. ---> Different income group was never the concentration of the argument hence can be eliminated.

C looks the best choice now

This is how I perceived the argument. Conclusion: some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations.

Choice C tells us that advertisers would have made a profit had they stayed with the changed publication, but decided against it...This gives us our strengthening reason.

This is a causal argument. The author is saying that moral, not financial, objections to the change in editorial are causing the advertisers to shift. Any answer that implies that the advertisers will profit from the switch is wrong. That takes out A, D, and E. B is out of scope because it talks about another group of advertisers completely.

That leaves C.

dv2020 -

Nice analysis.

Conclusion : Advertisers withdrew from a certain publication on moral grounds
Premise : The publication changed from family to adult content
Premise: Advertisers are motivated by financial and moral considerations

I would just change this around a little bit. I would say that the main conclusion is "some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations."

You can always check to see if you have the correct main conclusion using my "why? test" To use the why test you simply ask "Why (conclusion)?" or "what is the evidence for (conclusion)?"

So in this case it is "what is the evidence that 'some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations.'? Now if this is the main conclusion then the rest of the stimulus should answer this question.

In this case it does work. You see that the evidence for being motivated by moral considerations is everything else - the particular publication switched to the inappropriate format and some advertisers withdrew their advertisements, because they must have disapproved of the material. You see that this supports our conclusion because it is examples of advertisers motivated by moral considerations - but only if they do not benefit financially!

Otherwise what you have written is exactly right. The way that we link this evidence to this conclusion is if the advertisers really were concerned with morals!! In that case it makes this example actually an example of "advertisers motivated by moral considerations" If these advertisers are motivated by moral considerations that certainly strengthens the conclusion.

I was able to avoid D and E quite easily.

David, Would be great if you could explain the basis on which A and B are eliminated, just so I have clarity of thought going into such questions in future.

Cheers

Hi David.
The stimulus says that the advt. companies are governed by Profitmaking and Moral considerations only . So If the advertiser has decided to switch from the publication in question ,then the only way we can be certain that the advertiser was influenced by moral objectives is that we must eliminate any monetary considerations .
C says that Had the advertiser continued with the pub. , it would have continued to mint money and if it didnt it would lose money . Why then would a profit making company be led to make such a bad decision . The only answer appears to be Moral considerATions

dv2020 wrote:Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people"Ÿs tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on GMAT and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers.
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on GMAT and violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.
OA is C

I won't retype the main conclusion and premises here..david has already done that..going by the main conclusion - "moral& financial considerations = motivation of some advertisers"

also i did not use POE for this..A B E and D just did not fall under the purview of strengthening the conclusion..the stimulus discussed how the advertisers are morally motivated ..so the 2nd piece would be a choice which brings in the financial consideration angle. Hence C.

A is out because the switch to family newspapers could easily be financially motivated if that's where their audience is. We are looking for something that goes against financial motivation.

B is out because it is talking about other advertisers, not the one in the stimulus.