Critical Reasoning

A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position?
A.The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.
B.The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs.
C.Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports.
D.This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.
E. Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy.


Can anyone please explain why E is wrong? I assumed that E is correct because most network news viewers rely on the network news for primary source of information so the viewership will not drop as the viewers will have no more alternatives to get the information regarding the economy.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Hi rupalikunmun123,

The problem with the justification you gave for E is that you assumed that there is only one network news station. Even if most viewers rely on network broadcasts, they could have abandoned this network as a result of the negative report and switched to another network. Thus the information in E doesn't do a good job of showing that the drop of viewership had little to do with the negative report.

-Patrick

IMO A is the only possible correct answer.

IMO: A

Evidence: Controversial report was aired and the number of viewers dropped

Conclusion: The report is not in direct correlation to the drop in viewers

Assumption: There is something else that must have led to the drop in viewership.

A- Sounds somewhat decent- Must be something else that declined viewership
B- Weakens the argument- Regular viewers were the ones to leave so the report must have had an effect.
C- Weakens the argument- Reports like these effect the viewership all the time so this weakens the networks statement
D- Irrelevant- Only speaks about complaining about the report.
E- Does not strengthen the fact that viewership has a direct correlation to the new report.

IMO a

Only reason which justifies that drop in viewership was not because of the report.

i have a following question regarding option A : how can we assume in option A that "the other major network news organization" did not air the controversial report ? what if the same report was also aired by "other major networks"(i mean its not something unusual .it does happen that two news channel air the same report ) and that "the report " was a real reason behind the reduction of their viewers .i feel that option A is incomplete in its text .i do agree that in causal questions we have to show the specifics of cause and effect but here in option A we are just referring to the effect without even discussing the presence or absence of cause!!
i guess option A is making unwarranted assumptions
experts please help
PS :: the OA : is A .i am not questioning the OA .but whats bothering me is that option A is making the assumption that i have stated above and i have read in many post of Ron that the answers in strengthening and weakening questions sud stand of their own and sud not make any kind of assumption
instructors plz help me understand
thanks and regards

aditya8062 wrote:i have a following question regarding option A : how can we assume in option A that "the other major network news organization" did not air the controversial report ? what if the same report was also aired by "other major networks"(i mean its not something unusual .it does happen that two news channel air the same report ) and that "the report " was a real reason behind the reduction of their viewers .i feel that option A is incomplete in its text .i do agree that in causal questions we have to show the specifics of cause and effect but here in option A we are just referring to the effect without even discussing the presence or absence of cause!!
i guess option A is making unwarranted assumptions
experts please help
PS :: the OA : is A .i am not questioning the OA .but whats bothering me is that option A is making the assumption that i have stated above and i have read in many post of Ron that the answers in strengthening and weakening questions sud stand of their own and sud not make any kind of assumption
instructors plz help me understand
thanks and regards

I also choose a and I think exactly like you.

in many cases, strengthener/weakener require an assumption as in this case. I call this situation, OA NEED ASSUMPTION.

e gmat expert also talk about this problem in a posting in gmatclub. I think you can find it on the internet.

this situation is what we have to accept/learn for gmat.

to duongthang
kindly attach the link that u talking of
thanks and regards
aditya

According to the Tristate Transportation Authority

pls seach for above text in gmatclub, around which the relevan discusion will be found