Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's 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 concentration 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.
the answer is given C for this CR and i dont agree with it. i dont like this CR because its choices are not very nice but i chose A because i think C seems to weaken the argument.
the CR says " advertisers withdrew from magazine which changed its amage from family into sexual and violent concentration >>> (conclusion) advertisers cares of moral things or are motivated by moral....
doesnt C mean that advertiser wants their sales increase not to decrease this thats explain why they withdrew? doesnt mean that C gives another reason explaining why the advertiser withdrew? they withdrew just because they cant sales as much circulation as they did if the mazagine concentrate on GMAT and violence so in conclusion they care of money, and profits, not the moral things
am i right?
publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentration 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.
the answer is given C for this CR and i dont agree with it. i dont like this CR because its choices are not very nice but i chose A because i think C seems to weaken the argument.
the CR says " advertisers withdrew from magazine which changed its amage from family into sexual and violent concentration >>> (conclusion) advertisers cares of moral things or are motivated by moral....
doesnt C mean that advertiser wants their sales increase not to decrease this thats explain why they withdrew? doesnt mean that C gives another reason explaining why the advertiser withdrew? they withdrew just because they cant sales as much circulation as they did if the mazagine concentrate on GMAT and violence so in conclusion they care of money, and profits, not the moral things
am i right?
