BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
Guys, good to see i picked Op D only as my answer. Somewhere, The structure of the question isFrankenstein wrote:Thanks for your response. Even, I selected C in the test
I have actually PMed you to discuss C and D. But, I came to know from your reply that you checked my PM after postign here.When I see the Veritas in the title I have to see what is being discussed!
I missed this point. Thanks a lot for clarifying this.In this case the statement that "companies simply cannot compete without a great deal of media exposure" is the self-explanatory fact. This does not need to be explained, just accepted as true.
David@VeritasPrep wrote:When I see the Veritas in the title I have to see what is being discussed!
Here we have a paradox question - so we have two things that should not happen at the same time.
One thing should be self-explanatory, the other will need to be explained.
In this case the statement that "companies simply cannot compete without a great deal of media exposure" is the self-explanatory fact. This does not need to be explained, just accepted as true.
The part that needs to be explained is how this company is able to compete when they do not advertise on radio or television.
Of course there is a switch in terms here "media exposure" is what is required. The lack of radio and tv advertising does not mean that there cannot be media exposure in some other way.
Answer Choice D goes just to this point exactly. They are getting free exposure on news shows. Another answer that would have worked is "they do lots of print ads in magazines and billboards and signs on buses and mass transit trains." This would give exposure and is not radio and tv.
Choice C makes the common mistake of trying to DENY one side of the paradox. You are not allowed to do this. If I tell you that all good cars are over $15,000 new and then I tell you that I got a good car for $10,000 how did it happen? Well the key word is NEW so I must have gotten a used car for 10,000 that would have been 15,000 + new. What I cannot do is suddenly say, well some new cars have a discount or something like this. You cannot deny either side of the paradox.
Hope it helps!
New here Create free account
