network rating

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:28 pm
Location: chennai
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

network rating

by pappueshwar » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:23 am
The news media is often accused of being willing to do anything for ratings. However, recent action by a television network indicates that the news media is sometimes guided by moral principle. This network had discovered through polling voters on the east coast that the Republican candidate for President had garnered enough votes to ensure victory before the polls closed on the west coast. However, the network withheld this information until the polls on the west coast closed so that the information would not affect the outcome of key congressional races.
Which one of the following most strengthens the argument?
(A) The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President.
(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner.
(C) A rival network did predict a winner of the presidential race before the polls on the west coast closed.
(D) The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race.
(E) The network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race could so anger Congress that it might enact legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers.

OA IS B IMO D. pls explain
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:26 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Thiagaraj » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:31 pm
I went for C. But then realised, "The network knew that its ratings would increase if it predicted the winner. Still it did not predict. So it follows that the network did not do anything for the ratings. Which is the argument. So B strengthens the argument"

Correct me if I am wrong.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:08 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by scholardream » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:34 am
Underneath is my approach:
Order same as the assignment:
Premise: News media - Do anything for ratings
Conclusion: SOMETIMES news media guided by moral principle
Premise: Republican candidate won the vote, but news media withhold till polls end to not affect outcome
Question: strength conclusion:
(A) The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President -> News media should have broadcast the victory of Republican before the west coast closed -> News media could gain higher ratings -> against the argument -> eliminate
(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner. -> Even the news media know it could loss its current ratings status, it didn't broadcast the result of east coast (support the conclusion: news media won't do everything for ratings) -> keep to consider
(C)A rival network did predict a winner of the presidential race before the polls on the west coast closed. -> Don't talk about News Media -> eliminated
(D)The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race. -> This one actually goes against the conclusion that News media sometimes won't do everything for ratings -> eliminated
(E)The network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race could so anger Congress that it might enact legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers. -> Out of scope

How do peer think ?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:01 pm
Thanked: 54 times
Followed by:37 members

by chris@magoosh » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:19 pm
The Argument: the network is sometimes guided by morals and not ratings.

Evidence: it could have predicted outcome of election, but withheld info. because doing so was moral

Strengthen: an answer choice that shows that the network could have boosted ratings (reporting winner) but did the moral thing (not report winner).

(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if it did not predict the winner. ANSWER

This answer choice states that the network sacrificed higher ratings to do the moral thing (not report the winner).

(D) The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race.

This answer choice clearly shows that the network had a motive for not predicting the race: ratings. This goes directly against the argument, which says that the network was not motivated by ratings.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:08 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by scholardream » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:25 am
Hi Chris@magoosh,
Could you please advise me the approach to solve this question fast ?
As my approach, I still need to through all 5 choices before choosing the (B) one. But it takes so much time. As in preparation books, they often suggest continuing reading through the last answers is vital to avoid any aptemping answers.
For this question, after reading the answer (B), I could assure around 90% that (B) is correct as it meets my expected answer. In this case, do I still need to continue reading the remaining answers ?
Thanks,

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Fri May 11, 2012 7:33 am
good one

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 6:05 am
Thanked: 3 times

by ihatemaths » Fri May 11, 2012 7:35 pm
super passage. Answer B strengthens the premise of "morality of the n/w"