Critical Reasoning

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.
(B) Some advertisers switched from
family newspapers to advertise
in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their
product sales to increase if they
stayed with the changed
publication, but to decrease if
they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read
family newspapers are not
likely to buy newspapers that
concentrate on GMAT and
violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed
publication would appeal
principally to those in a
different income group.

I think its C

The passage concludes that " There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations" The example talked about some advertisers who were mitovated by moral consideration. If there is a statement that address the Financial consideration of some advertisers as well the the argument and the conclusion especially would be strong.

C talk about the financial considerations of some advertisers..

OA?

I think its D.
As to strengthen the financial consideration. D says that a particular group who used to buy the magazine will no more buy it thus advertiser losing customer.

OA is C.

I took it this way :-

Premise - Some advertisers withdrew ...
Conclusion - This must have been because they morally disapproved ...

I picked A. A says that the advertisers went to family newspapers, sort of indicating that they wanted to stick with the morally correct material.

IMO, if C were to say ... " the advertisers who withdrew expected ... " instead of "advertisers expected ... " , it would have be stronger than A.

Please throw more light .. what's wrong with A.

Thanks

Both A and C strengthen the argument, however I agree with Sumit as I dont understand how C strengthens it more than A.

I think A is wrong bcz we don't know wheter the advertisers found other paper more profitable or not. If they did - the reasons they changed paper are obvious - profit, if they didn't - we can assume that advertisers may sacrificed their profit to appropriateness. Thus, one may argue that the advertsrs are the righteous men who shepherd the weak through the valey of darkness ..... )) - C- is the ezekiel

IMO C...

Claim 1: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants.
Claim 2 : There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations.
Example : 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.

Claim 1 is true only if the two conditions mentioned within Claim 2 are true.

Example provided, proves one condition within Claim 2 as true and we need a example which sets the second condition True as well.

C will be an option only because an explicit condition has been stated for advertisements to manipulate people's tastes and wants.

Can anyone tell me what is the right conclusion in this argument? I was just thinking on the various ways one can strengthen the argument and wanted to know as to whether this argument provides support to the conclusion for strengthening the argument.

@nileshdalvi : Yes, it does strengthen the argument.

Consider the below explanation:

If (Condition A & Condition B) then people's tastes and wants are manipulated.

Condition A (From Argument) : Some Advertisers morally disapprove of publishing salacious material

We need the second condition(i.e. Financial consideration) to prove advertisers are really manipulating people's tastes and wants.

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

This option shows that advertisers considered financial aspect when they made the choice of staying with the publication.
Hence C.

OA is also C.

@Jitendra:

This option shows that advertisers considered financial aspect when they made the choice of staying with the publication.

But the stimulus says that the advertisers did not stay with the publication.

[/quote]

sumitkhurana 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.
(B) Some advertisers switched from
family newspapers to advertise
in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their
product sales to increase if they
stayed with the changed
publication, but to decrease if
they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read
family newspapers are not
likely to buy newspapers that
concentrate on GMAT and
violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed
publication would appeal
principally to those in a
different income group.

I would go with D. We need to focus on what exactly the stimulus is asking to strengthen. The BOLD part is the one that the argument is centered on. We need to find a reason to support why some advertisers moved out of publication.

A- Cannot be the reason as it explains what happened after they moved out but does not explain WHY they moved out. Its basically a consequence but not the reason.

C- The advertisers expected, which advertisers are we talking about here ? The one who moved out or the one who continued with the publication. If it is from the later point of view the statement would be correct. However, argument is interested in knowing the BOLD part, which probably points us to Advertisers "The one who moved out" and therefore C cannot be true IMO.

sumanr84 wrote: I would go with D. We need to focus on what exactly the stimulus is asking to strengthen. The BOLD part is the one that the argument is centered on. We need to find a reason to support why some advertisers moved out of publication.

A- Cannot be the reason as it explains what happened after they moved out but does not explain WHY they moved out. Its basically a consequence but not the reason.

C- The advertisers expected, which advertisers are we talking about here ? The one who moved out or the one who continued with the publication. If it is from the later point of view the statement would be correct. However, argument is interested in knowing the BOLD part, which probably points us to Advertisers "The one who moved out" and therefore C cannot be true IMO.

Look at the sentence below
Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally dissapproved of publishing salacious material.

Stimulus is asking to strengthen that advertisers withdrew their advertisement on moral ground.

D weekens the above argument by providing alternative explanation for why advertisers withdrew.

Whereas C clearly strengthen the argument by proving that inspite of losing sales advertisers withdrew their advertisements because they are morally dissapproved of publishing salacious material.

Phirozz wrote: Look at the sentence below
Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally dissapproved of publishing salacious material.

Stimulus is asking to strengthen that advertisers withdrew their advertisement on moral ground.

D weekens the above argument by providing alternative explanation for why advertisers withdrew.

Whereas C clearly strengthen the argument by proving that inspite of losing sales advertisers withdrew their advertisements because they are morally dissapproved of publishing salacious material.

I donot think C is making any claim like the one you have put above rather its mere an "EXPECTATION". C does not say whether advertisers really withdrew from publisher inspite of loss. It only puts a point regarding what they thought. Also, from the tone in C, it looks as if they continued with the publisher rather than leaving it.

Pls check again and let me know your comments.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/tough-cr-t41600.html

I saw this post earlier in the forum even I chose D but IMO is C

Can any one give explantion why not D but C.