Guys, I have not received any response of last two posts. Waiting for that. However, refer this question -
Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising.
Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.
Which of the following best describes how the consumer counters the advertiser’s argument?
(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion
(B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based
(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it
(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased
(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic
Waiting for your reply and also it will be helpful if you can provide me some explanation.
OA after some discussions ...