the long advertisement

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

the long advertisement

by simone88 » Sat May 26, 2012 10:45 am
Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement.
During the half hour the advertisement was aired, a substantial portion of the viewing public tuned into the advertisement. Clearly, then, many more people are interested in watching lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The candidate's ratings improved significantly as a result of the half-hour-long political advertisement.
B. Political advertisements have become increasingly influential in determining voters' decisions at the polls.
C. Many people would appreciate the opportunity to become better acquainted with political candidates' views on current political issues.
D. Most people who are interested in political issues watch television regularly.
E. Most of the viewers who tuned in to the candidate's half-hour-long advertisement last year did not change channels after the first few minutes.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The candidate who produced the half-hour-long advertisement did not win election at the polls
B. The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast
C. The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during al time slot normally taken by one of the most popular prime-time shows
D. Most short political advertisements are aired during a wide range of programs in order to reach a broad spectrum of viewers
E. In general a regular-lenght television program that features debate current political issues depends for its appeal on the personal qualities of the program's moderator

In the first one I would go with E. In the second one I don't remember exactly the OA but I think it is C. Anyway why C could be a better answer than B:
with B the advertisement was widely publicized so even if people wouldn't generally watch long advertisements they may do it in this case
with C the advertisement was aired during a very followed tv program so even in this case even if people wouldn't generally watch long advertisements they may do it in this case.
Am I missing something?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sat May 26, 2012 11:11 am
Hi! Just a reminder, please post the source of your questions (always a good habit).

Whenever you have an assumption family question (assumption/strengthen/weaken/flaw), start by deconstructing the argument: find the conclusion, summarize the evidence and identify the assumption.

Here, we use the keyword "clearly" to identify the last sentence as the conclusion.

C: Many more people are interested in watching long tv political ads than previously thought.

Next, let's summarize the evidence.

E: Sample of 1 half-hour ad into which many people tuned.

Finally, let's think about what has to be true for the conclusion to follow from the evidence.

Recognizing common argument structures gives you a huge advantage over the competition in CR. One common structure that we see is representativeness - an author uses a sample group to draw a conclusion about a larger population. We certainly have an example of that here - the author uses one TV ad to dispel a common belief about political ads in general.

A1: interest in this particular ad wasn't an aberration - it's representative of current levels of interest in long political ads.

We also see a classic scope shift here; the belief the author is trying to dispel is whether people would watch length TV ads, but the evidence is that they merely "tuned into" this particular ad.

A2: "tuned into" means "would watch lengthy televised political messages".

With those predictions in mind, let's look at the choices for the first question.

A) nothing to do with either assumption;
B) nothing to do with either assumption;
C) nothing to do with either assumption;
D) nothing to do with either assumption; and
E) ding ding ding! Right in line with assumption 2 - not only did those people see that ad while flipping through the channels, they actually continued to watch it, so "tuned into" does in fact mean "watched the ad".

We can also use Kaplan's Denial Test to see that (E) must be true for the argument to hold.

(Anti-E) Most of the viewers who tuned in to the candidate's half-hour-long advertisement last year DID change channels after the first few minutes.

Well, if most of the viewers changed the channel after only a few minutes, how does this ad show that people would watch lengthy TV political messages? It clearly doesn't! Since "anti-E" destroys the argument, "E" is an assumption.

* * *

To weaken an argument, we look for a choice that undermines the author's assumption. So, let's look for an answer that makes us believe either that the ad isn't representative of political ads in general or that "tuning into" doesn't mean "interested in watching".

A) doesn't match either prediction;
B) doesn't match either prediction;
C) ding ding ding! (C) suggests that people flipped to that channel expecting to see their favourite TV show (most likely a weekly show about Data Sufficiency), not to see the ad. Since (C) raises a doubt that the people who "tuned into" the show were actually interested in the show, it weakens the argument.

On test day we'd stop right there, but let's go into review mode and check the last two choices:

D) doesn't match either prediction; and
E) doesn't match either prediction.

You asked about (B), so let's take a closer look at that choice.

B. The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast.

(B) doesn't weaken for two main reasons:

1) we have no idea whether other long political ads were widely publicized, so we can't compare the results of this ad to any historical data; and

2) just because people tuned into the ad after it was publicized doesn't mean that people aren't interested in long political TV ads. In fact, perhaps the reason why no one watched them in the past wasn't due to lack of interest, but to lack of publicity. Maybe people have been interested in them all along, they just never knew they existed!

Accordingly, (B) isn't a weakener.

Hope that helps!

Stuart
simone88 wrote:Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement.
During the half hour the advertisement was aired, a substantial portion of the viewing public tuned into the advertisement. Clearly, then, many more people are interested in watching lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The candidate's ratings improved significantly as a result of the half-hour-long political advertisement.
B. Political advertisements have become increasingly influential in determining voters' decisions at the polls.
C. Many people would appreciate the opportunity to become better acquainted with political candidates' views on current political issues.
D. Most people who are interested in political issues watch television regularly.
E. Most of the viewers who tuned in to the candidate's half-hour-long advertisement last year did not change channels after the first few minutes.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The candidate who produced the half-hour-long advertisement did not win election at the polls
B. The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast
C. The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during al time slot normally taken by one of the most popular prime-time shows
D. Most short political advertisements are aired during a wide range of programs in order to reach a broad spectrum of viewers
E. In general a regular-lenght television program that features debate current political issues depends for its appeal on the personal qualities of the program's moderator

In the first one I would go with E. In the second one I don't remember exactly the OA but I think it is C. Anyway why C could be a better answer than B:
with B the advertisement was widely publicized so even if people wouldn't generally watch long advertisements they may do it in this case
with C the advertisement was aired during a very followed tv program so even in this case even if people wouldn't generally watch long advertisements they may do it in this case.
Am I missing something?
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Sat May 26, 2012 1:37 pm
I think I misunderstood what time slot means: I thought it meant an advertisement break during the prime-time show. Instead it means the period in which there was supposed to be a prime-time show. Right?
So let's summarize:
B doesn't weaken the thesis beacause people could still be intersted in lenghty political messages but not being publicized they just don'watch them.
C instead weakens because people tuned into the advertisement not for seeing the advertisement but for an other reason: they thought that the prime-tv show woulb be aired. All right so far?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Sat May 26, 2012 2:09 pm
simone88 wrote:I think I misunderstood what time slot means: I thought it meant an advertisement break during the prime-time show. Instead it means the period in which there was supposed to be a prime-time show. Right?
So let's summarize:
B doesn't weaken the thesis beacause people could still be intersted in lenghty political messages but not being publicized they just don'watch them.
C instead weakens because people tuned into the advertisement not for seeing the advertisement but for an other reason: they thought that the prime-tv show woulb be aired. All right so far?
Correct!
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Sun May 27, 2012 1:14 am
sorry to have posted in cr section.