AIM GMAT wrote:IMO C.

ankur.agrawal wrote: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   concentrating   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.    

We cannot say whether they switched or not from the given passage.

(B)  Some  advertisers  switched  from  family  newspapers  to  advertise  in  the  changed  publication.    

We cannot say whether they switched or not from the given passage.

(C)  The  advertisers  expected  their  product  sales  to  increase  if  they  stayed  with  the  changed  publication,  but  to  decrease   if  they  withdrew.  

If they withdraw product sales is going down. Still they withdrew. That means their decision to withdraw is subject to their moral.
 
(D)  People  who  generally  read  family  newspapers  are  not  likely  to  buy  newspapers  that  concentrate  on  GMAT  and  violence.

Could be true. But we do not know if the family reader group is interested in the new reader group. Also we do not which group is more in number. So, nothing can be said. Moreover, this does not say anything about whether advertisers are disapproved of morality.

(E)  It  was  expected  that  the  changed  publication  would  appeal  principally  to  those  in  a  different  income  group.

Is the different income group are more in number than current publication's reader group? We do not know.

OA after some discussion

ankur.agrawal wrote: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   concentrating   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.
   
We need to find an answer choie which gives strenght to the fact tht advertisers do have moral obligations.
  Which  one  of  the  following,  if  true,  would  most  strengthen  the  argument?    
(A)  The  advertisers  switched  their  advertisements  to  other  family  newspapers.
This shows the advertisers just moved out for their own financial benefit   
(B)  Some  advertisers  switched  from  family  newspapers  to  advertise  in  the  changed  publication.  
It doesnt talk abt the ones who shifted frm the changed one. o way it stregthens 
(C)  The  advertisers  expected  their  product  sales  to  increase  if  they  stayed  with  the  changed  publication,  but  to  decrease   if  they  withdrew.  
Inspite of the fact tht the advertisers knew they wud suffer a financial loss they mde a shift. This stregthens the authors point tht advertisers do have moral obligations.  
(D)  People  who  generally  read  family  newspapers  are  not  likely  to  buy  newspapers  that  concentrate  on  GMAT  and  violence.
Out of scope
(E)  It  was  expected  that  the  changed  publication  would  appeal  principally  to  those  in  a  different  income  group.
no whr its mentioned the advertisements cate to a specific incoem grp.
OA after some discussion