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 reduction 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 fees 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.
Here are my thoughts about how I arrived to the answer
a. Reiterates a fact in the stimulus - incorrect
b. Sounds reasonable; keep for negation
c. Sounds reasonable; keep for negation
d. out of scope. Stimulus and its conclusion involves Kitchen magazine and the cookware company
e. very weak assumption. There is a possibility of Kitchen magazine to be one of the most prestigious cooking related magazine, but we are more
concerned about the implication(s) that may arise in the internal affair (possible loss of revenue) if the deal does not get reached.
b and c negation
"if Kitchen licenses its name to other product" - it won't necessarily hinder its possible revenue because Kitchen can still collect licensing fees from other product that is being endorsed by Kitchen
"if makers of cookware find Kitchen less attractive advertising vehicle" - then the makers of the cookware can find other publications to endorse their product, causing the Kitchen magazine to loose its possible licensing fee, diminishing their revenue, further endangering other revenues.
c
How does this sound?
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.
Here are my thoughts about how I arrived to the answer
a. Reiterates a fact in the stimulus - incorrect
b. Sounds reasonable; keep for negation
c. Sounds reasonable; keep for negation
d. out of scope. Stimulus and its conclusion involves Kitchen magazine and the cookware company
e. very weak assumption. There is a possibility of Kitchen magazine to be one of the most prestigious cooking related magazine, but we are more
concerned about the implication(s) that may arise in the internal affair (possible loss of revenue) if the deal does not get reached.
b and c negation
"if Kitchen licenses its name to other product" - it won't necessarily hinder its possible revenue because Kitchen can still collect licensing fees from other product that is being endorsed by Kitchen
"if makers of cookware find Kitchen less attractive advertising vehicle" - then the makers of the cookware can find other publications to endorse their product, causing the Kitchen magazine to loose its possible licensing fee, diminishing their revenue, further endangering other revenues.
c
How does this sound?
Last edited by shoot4greatness on Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
