Break-up!

Since the break-up of the monopoly AT&T held on the telephone industry, the average price of long-distance phone calls has decreased by 15 percent. Therefore, if the virtual monopoly cable television maintains over the pay-television industry is broken up, the price for pay-television will also decrease by 15 percent.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

Argument can be paraphrased as under :

Break up of monopoly of AT & T on telephone industry
Price of calls decreased by 15%

Therefore if : - Break up of monopoly of Cable TV on pay-tv industry
Price of pay-tv will decrease by 15$

Here comparison is made between two items that are essentially different. The answer choice that restates this will help weaken the argument.

A.The price of pay television increased at approximately the same time that the price of long-distance calls decreased.
INCORRECT : out of scope

B.When an established monopoly exists in an industry, the price of that industry's product tends to increase.
INCORRECT : out of scope.. issue is not about existence of monopoly.... issue is about break up of monopoly

C.The number of long-distance calls made has dramatically increased in recent years, while the number of people subscribing to pay television has remained the same.
INCORRECT : number v/s percentage dispute

D.If the monopoly over the pay television industry continues, the price for pay television will increase significantly.
INCORRECT : helps to strengthen the argument by stating that if the cause (monopoly) occurs then effect (increase in price of pay tv) will also occur

E.The price of pay television is controlled by economic and sociological forces different from those that control the price of long-distance phone calls.
CORRECT : This shows that comparison is made between items that are essentially different

Hope this helps : )

This is really a good one. My Pick is E.

A - extra info but out of scope.
B & D - are out , Actually they suggests why the price would go up but dont establish any relations..
C. Tempting, but the number of calls made compared with the number of people subscribing..but calls made went up in recent years and could be due to avg price dropped. But the number of TV subscribers are same...so it does not weaken the conclusion at all.
E - fits the Bill. telephone industry and pay-television industry are two different industries and controlled by two different entities. So what works for A may not work for B. actually weakens.

I had a confusion between C and E

I thought that "the decrease in the price of the long distance call could be because of the increase in the number of calls which is not the case with the pay-television industry" and eventually ended up selecting C.

Is there any way to avoid such flawed reasoning? Please help.

vijay_venky wrote:I had a confusion between C and E

I thought that "the decrease in the price of the long distance call could be because of the increase in the number of calls which is not the case with the pay-television industry" and eventually ended up selecting C.

Is there any way to avoid such flawed reasoning? Please help.

thats y in GMAT its necessary to read all options....
in the abscence of E , C wud have been the ans.
opton C is a kind of assumption , which is toooooooo.......far from the argument , nothing about numbers is discussed in stimulus....
these kind of tempting answers will always there to pull one down...
to avoid we must be aware of the scope of stimulus

komal wrote: C.The number of long-distance calls made has dramatically increased in recent years, while the number of people subscribing to pay television has remained the same.
INCORRECT : number v/s percentage dispute

Wonderful Reasoning Komal!!!

bhumika.k.shah wrote:Since the break-up of the monopoly AT&T held on the telephone industry, the average price of long-distance phone calls has decreased by 15 percent. Therefore, if the virtual monopoly cable television maintains over the pay-television industry is broken up, the price for pay-television will also decrease by 15 percent.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?
A.The price of pay television increased at approximately the same time that the price of long-distance calls decreased.
B.When an established monopoly exists in an industry, the price of that industry's product tends to increase.
C.The number of long-distance calls made has dramatically increased in recent years, while the number of people subscribing to pay television has remained the same.
D.If the monopoly over the pay television industry continues, the price for pay television will increase significantly.
E.The price of pay television is controlled by economic and sociological forces different from those that control the price of long-distance phone calls.

Reasoning required please

A - It does not weaken the conclusion since the time frame for the implementation is different
B - Supports the conclusion
C - Cannot weaken the argument since post implementation scenario for phone is compared with pre implementation scenario for TV
D - Supports the conclusion
E - Weakens the argument since it attacks the validity of the comparison

E for me

I must admit that E seems to be the answer. What's OA?