Critical Reasoning

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[/quote]

hmmm i think the answer should be B but dont know why its A. i am not convinced with A much... i need expert's explanation please!

I also think that the answer is more B than A. Moreover, I believe the answer choice A is not fitting here.

As per answer choice B and beyond it: The consumer does question the truth of the statements made by the advertiser and extends his reasoning beyond what was stated in the conversation by the advertiser. Consumer makes a note about the effects of advertising costs on consumers.

Now the answer choice A is not fitting here because it has nothing to do with weakening the advertiser's argument. Just nothing at all. This entry is from which source? The one definitely could not be LSAT or GMAT. Look, the only way conclusion made by the advertiser is weakened is by casting doubt on the magazines and newspapers themselves. Consumer should have asked the following question(s) to weaken the advertiser's argument: "What if consumers do not buy the magazines and newspapers (publications)? Will any advertising piece be paid for placing commercial in these magazines? Who would read these advertisements if the magazines, which would not be bought/purchased/demanded by the consumers?" So in reality the advertiser's conclusion is weak, BUT the consumer was unable to weaken or has made a very poor attempt to weaken the advertiser's conclusion, as the only issue which was addressed was - "Why advertising costs are spread over consumers within the prices of products?" You see? The consumer has some sort of delay and is unable to weaken the conclusion of the advertiser. Instead, the consumer goes all the way around and starts weakening the viewpoints of commercial entities which are placing advertising with the magazines and newspapers.

Definitely disagree about the answer choice A.

diebeatsthegmat wrote: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

hmmm i think the answer should be B but dont know why its A. i am not convinced with A much... i need expert's explanation please![/quote]

Also refer to the below link :-

https://www.beatthegmat.com/advertising-t6569.html

Cheers .

thanks, but not much help

AIM GMAT wrote:Also refer to the below link :-

https://www.beatthegmat.com/advertising-t6569.html

Cheers .

Op B can not be the correct answer its completely wrong....
Op B says:--- By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser's conclusion is based
The purportedly factual statement in advertiser's argument is "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."

see the customer is not denying this fact, he is just denying the conclusion...means he is not questioning the validity of the fact...
now if u look at Op A..."By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser's conclusion"....the customer is saying that we customers pay for the resulted(Because of advertising) higher cost...if this hold true as the Op A suggest than the advertiser's conclusion fall apart....Hence Op A wins

Yes, consumer does not deny these facts. But A is still questioned, isn't it? I noticed how advertiser has shifted the scope from the publisher to the firms advertising in the magazines and newspapers. The publisher concluded in the economic benefit to the consumer from the latter's buying magazines. So the scope was shifted to advertising and/or to advertisers. The advertisers are implied as the publishers or the firms here?

atulmangal wrote:Op B can not be the correct answer its completely wrong....
Op B says:--- By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser's conclusion is based
The purportedly factual statement in advertiser's argument is "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."

see the customer is not denying this fact, he is just denying the conclusion...means he is not questioning the validity of the fact...
now if u look at Op A..."By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser's conclusion"....the customer is saying that we customers pay for the resulted(Because of advertising) higher cost...if this hold true as the Op A suggest than the advertiser's conclusion fall apart....Hence Op A wins

I marked B in the previous post as one possibility, and now I see B isn't a good option at all. I've put criticism on A and remain this criticism. Would it be possible for the experts - Ron Purewal and Kevin Armstrong, to kindly contribute to this thread.

Night reader wrote:Yes, consumer does not deny these facts. But A is still questioned, isn't it? I noticed how advertiser has shifted the scope from the publisher to the firms advertising in the magazines and newspapers. The publisher concluded in the economic benefit to the consumer from the latter's buying magazines. So the scope was shifted to advertising and/or to advertisers. The advertisers are implied as the publishers or the firms here?

atulmangal wrote:Op B can not be the correct answer its completely wrong....
Op B says:--- By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser's conclusion is based
The purportedly factual statement in advertiser's argument is "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."

see the customer is not denying this fact, he is just denying the conclusion...means he is not questioning the validity of the fact...
now if u look at Op A..."By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser's conclusion"....the customer is saying that we customers pay for the resulted(Because of advertising) higher cost...if this hold true as the Op A suggest than the advertiser's conclusion fall apart....Hence Op A wins

Well only two people are arguing, Advertiser and customer...and finally advertiser made a conclusion in his argument and and the ans choices are such that, that we need to look at the conclusion part only and the conclusion addresses customers.
Anyways may be experts may understand your doubt in a better way...

@atulmangal, it's that OA marked by some GMAT preparation company for this question is A and I have to clear my doubt automatically? I have to understand why the answer is A. The strategy used by you for this question resembles that used by many other participants on the old threads at BTG and GMAT club - walking around an official answer ... Sorry

we have to deal with two conclusions here - the advertiser's and the consumer's

answer choice A proposed weakening the conclusion of the advertiser with the conclusion made by the consumer

I better wait for some expert to contribute to this thread than blindly accepting answer choice A as correct one

diebeatsthegmat wrote: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

On my cursory look, I marked A ,B & C as contenders. Although on second look i could figure out that C is totally out of scope.

B is also incorrect as consumer is not questioning the truth of factual statement. The factual satement in this case is 'the revenue from advertising keep the price of magzines lower '. Consumer has never argued against it.. infact he argues against the conclusion made by advertiser that "consumer is benefited from advertising".

A is correct as it offer a explanation that infact its consumers who pay fo this advertising indirectly by paying more prices for the product of those advertisers.

So it directly weaken the advertiser's conclusion.

These method of reasoning questions, as well as similar questions, such as bold-faced reasoning, are very tough to do well. Because the language is abstract everything seems to be an interpretation.

In this case, I read choice A as something that is designed to be correct. Think about what A is saying, the consumer counters the argument by (and here I am paraphrasing) "by saying something that if it is true will weaken the advertiser's conclusion."

When would this not be the correct answer? Do you see what I mean? It is like the question asks how he weakens the conclusion and the answer choice says "by offering something that if true would weaken." This is designed to be correct - if not necessarily very friendly in wording.

Now look at choice B - this one says in essence "he challenges a premise." A premise is what a factual statement is in critical reasoning. So does the consumer challenge the premise? Does he says that publishers do not keep prices per copy low? No he does not say this he says that even if per copy newspaper prices are low because of advertising the price of soda and cereal is made higher by advertising costs.

Try to interpret the wording when doing questions like this and don't just deal with the choices exactly as written but figure out what they mean - even if that can be a challenge.

thanks David, sometimes posts on the BTG forum involve very "sophisticated" thinking by examiner, especially entries from non-official sources