-
Soumita Ghosh
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:7 members
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reductions in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
A. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.
B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.
C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.
D. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.
E. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.
OA C
But I am confused with A and C.
My explanation goes like this for choice A: No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. If we negate it. If it is assume that other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry kitchen name then conclusion will not remain the same.Then the conclusion will be Kitchen can collect its licensing fee but will endanger its other revenues. Because if other line of cookware is superior then customer may get dissatisfied with the cookware which kitchen magazine advertised. The magazine's reputation will suffer, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising and a result less revenue. On the other hand if it is assume that no other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. The product which kitchen magazine advertised will not disappoint the customer. As a result The magazine's reputation will not suffer. So Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.
My explanation for choice C goes like this : Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. If we negate it. It is assumed that Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product then the other makers of cookware who have till now advertised in kitchen might stop advertising in Kitchen. This could lead to loss of revenue. If it is assumed that Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product then the magazine will not suffer loss of revenue.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
A. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.
B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.
C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.
D. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.
E. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.
OA C
But I am confused with A and C.
My explanation goes like this for choice A: No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. If we negate it. If it is assume that other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry kitchen name then conclusion will not remain the same.Then the conclusion will be Kitchen can collect its licensing fee but will endanger its other revenues. Because if other line of cookware is superior then customer may get dissatisfied with the cookware which kitchen magazine advertised. The magazine's reputation will suffer, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising and a result less revenue. On the other hand if it is assume that no other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. The product which kitchen magazine advertised will not disappoint the customer. As a result The magazine's reputation will not suffer. So Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.
My explanation for choice C goes like this : Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. If we negate it. It is assumed that Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product then the other makers of cookware who have till now advertised in kitchen might stop advertising in Kitchen. This could lead to loss of revenue. If it is assumed that Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product then the magazine will not suffer loss of revenue.
