Section - 2 Problem - 16

camitava · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: Section - 2 Problem - 16

Guys, I have not received any response of last two posts. Waiting for that. However, refer this question -
Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising.
Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.
Which of the following best describes how the consumer counters the advertiser’s argument?
(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion
(B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based
(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it
(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased
(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic
Waiting for your reply and also it will be helpful if you can provide me some explanation.
OA after some discussions ...

samirpandeyit62 · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:59 am Post subject:

I think it should be between A & C, but A seems more convincing to me.

The Consumer is alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser?s conclusion i.e "Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising"

camitava · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:

Sorry Samir, dnt mind! Then why not E where E is saying that the customer argument tried to say that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic. And thats what we can find in customer's argument.

maverick2007 · Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject:

IMO the ans is E since the consumer is points out a possible economic effect of advertisement that the advertiser seemed to be overlooking.

I think A is out of picture since the consumer is not alleging something here.

What is the OA

camitava · Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:12 am Post subject:

Still I am not clear why Samir has chosen A. But maverick2007, the OA is A itself but I am not clear what Samir has said...

jan08 · Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject:

ok camitava..here is what i understand:

(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion - correct becoz if the consumer is true abt his claim then advertiser's statement is weakened "consumer getting benefited economically" - hold this for a moment and look at other options..
(B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based - cud be a possible answer, but little too strong..again hold this for a moment
(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it..negated straight away
(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased...makes no sense
(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic..again this makes no sense..becoz we have better options in A & B (sorry abt that)

If you closely analyze A & B, A sounds better...as I have said B may be little too strong (harsh)...moreover the consumer is not challenging the statement (premise) of advertiser but he is challenging his conclusion..

hope this helps.

samirpandeyit62 · Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:46 am Post subject:

Hi Amitava,
I chose A coz
1) The consumer does not provide any evidence or a real world example to ascertain his statements abt the advertisers, so we can say that he is alleging & his statement if true would certainly weaken the feasibilty of the conclusion made by the advertiser

E states that the Consumer is argueing that the advertiser is mostly concerned abt the economic effects of advertising, but no other effect is discussed as the Consumer too speaks abt the economic effects of advertising, but only the ill effects of it as opposed to the advertiser.

sankruth · Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:47 am Post subject:

IMO - A

Countering an argument can only be done by showing a logical flaw in the argument structure.

E does not point at a logical flaw. (WRONG)
D - There is no indication of bias in the argument (WRONG)
B - Consumer does not question the truth of whether advertisment helps lower the price per copy to the consumer. (WRONG)
C - There is no interpretation offered to whether advertisment indeed keeps the price of newpaper down. The consumer only questions whether he is benefitted economically. (WRONG)

Leaving A, which provides a point of view, if true will put the conclusion of advertiser in doubt.

camitava · Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:34 am Post subject:

Thanks a lot, guys! Now got it ...