Critical Reasoning

Everybody agrees that a decline in the quality of television programming invariably results in a decrease in television viewership. Members of the Television Writer Union are threatening to go on strike this season to meet certain demands. Clearly, the movie studios whose movies are shown in the theaters should hope that the television writers will indeed decide to go on strike.

Each of the following must be assumed to be true in order for the conclusion above to be properly drawn EXCEPT

a. television writers arenot the same writers who writer screenplayes for movie shown in theaters

b an increase in movie attendance will result in increased profits for movie theaters

c. a television writers' strike would result in a decline in the quality to television programming

d movie studio profits are directly correlated to the profits of the movie theaters themselves

e. when people watch less telecisioin their movie theater attendance increases

IMO : C please lemme know your opinions..

IMO B.

My reasoning :

1. television writers are not the same writers who writer screenplayes for movie shown in theaters ->this is a necessary assumption bcos only then the movie theatres can go on without any disturbance.

3. Decrease in television quality will result in decreased viewership that will help movie studios.

4. this is also a necessary assumption as we are interested in movie studios profits which will depend on movie theatres.

5. This is also a necessary assumption as we must know if people actually go to theatres if not watch TV.

Option B which talks about movie theatres profit is therefore irrelevant.
and hence the answer.

OA please?

I would go for - A and the second contender would be - D

IMO B is the best choice here...

an increase in movie attendance will result in increased profits for movie theaters

Profits for movie theaters doesn't mean that profits for movie studios..

OA?

IMO A...

We don't need to assume the television writer's are same or not as the movies are currently showing in the theaters and writer's part is already complete for the movies showing in the theater.

Only C CANNOT Be Assumed in this argument.

What is implied in the conclusion is a hope that striking workers are indispensable to TV quality program for the time of the strike. This is only a hope and need not be so.

Let's contradict C and see what happens to the conclusion - the hope for writers to strike. A television writer's strike would NOT Result in a decline in TV programing under this scenario. This could be for many reasons. What if there is an oversupply of quality TV programming preceding the strike? Definitely people would still be glued to their TV while writers strike, especially if the supply can last for about a year. So how does that affect the conclusion? It doesn't because the conclusion is only hoping for a scenario in which people would abandon their TV, due to there being no quality program available since writers are on strike. The argument does not depend on this hope being realized since it is only a hope; being such the conclusion grants that the hope cannot be met, which is the case under this scenario. No rules of inference or logic are violated except that the "hoper" is out of luck.


Let's do the same for B. Let one million people go to the movie because of the strike ie there is no over supply of quality work and only reruns are available. So in this case if there is strike then people will indeed not watch TV. In this case the HOPE is GRANTED. But despite this increase, let profit of the movie industry stay constant or even decline. How does that affect the Conclusion? The conclusion fails because this is the scenario that was being hoped for. Implicit in the hope is that more people would turn out more profits for the industry but clearly this has not happened eventhough more people did turn out. A Wish is granted but another factor or factors make the wish unrealizable. That other factor could be a huge investment cost that anticipated an increase of 10 million people and not 1 million. Clearly 1 million would not be sufficient to cover expenses. The only way out of this scenario is to ASSUME that NO OTHER FACTORs come into play when there is an increase in the number of people attending movies b/c of striking workers. This is why B Must be assumed.

Answer should be A...

ketkoag wrote:Everybody agrees that a decline in the quality of television programming invariably results in a decrease in television viewership. Members of the Television Writer Union are threatening to go on strike this season to meet certain demands. Clearly, the movie studios whose movies are shown in the theaters should hope that the television writers will indeed decide to go on strike.

Each of the following must be assumed to be true in order for the conclusion above to be properly drawn EXCEPT

a. television writers are not the same writers who writer screenplays for movie shown in theaters

b an increase in movie attendance will result in increased profits for movie theaters

c. a television writers' strike would result in a decline in the quality to television programming

d movie studio profits are directly correlated to the profits of the movie theaters themselves

e. when people watch less television their movie theater attendance increases

IMO : C please lemme know your opinions..

IMO the answer is C.

A-> this is clearly a needed assumption. Else a strike will cause loss to the theaters as well.
B-> Clearly assumed since that is why the Movie theaters are hoping for the strike.
C-> This is not assumed at all. Since there is no reason for the strike. We do not know the reason for the strike and what the demands are.
D->True and a needed assumption
E->Needed assumption.

What is the OA ?? . I hope my reasoning is correct in GMAT terms

Answer given : A but after all the inputs from you guys i am sure that's the wrong OA coz A is a necessary assumption. please put in your inputs if you disagree.....

I'm sure of this answer: A

We know that D cannot possibly be correct, since the movies are watched at the theaters; if more movies are watched at the theaters, more sales are achieved, so more profits are gained, which also knocks out B (think about it the other way... if theaters DIDN'T gain profit, why would they be in business?). Choices C and E are necessary as well.

sudeep_ar wrote:IMO A...

We don't need to assume the television writer's are same or not as the movies are currently showing in the theaters and writer's part is already complete for the movies showing in the theater.

As I explained earlier. [A] is correct and not required assumption. If the movies are currently running then why do we need the writer for that movie? If he/she is on strike or not, the movie can still profit for the studios and theaters as it is running in the theaters.

I would go with option A as the correct option