television advertising

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:00 am
Thanked: 1 times

television advertising

by vikramveer » Fri May 28, 2010 2:38 am
A recent study reveals that television advertising does not significantly affect children's preferences for breakfast cereals. The study compared two groups of children. One group had watched no television, and the other group had watched average amounts of television and its advertising. Both groups strongly preferred the sugary cereals heavily advertised on television.


Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?
(A) The preferences of children who do not watch television advertising are influenced by the preferences of children who watch the advertising.
(B) The preference for sweets is not a universal trait in human and can be influenced by environmental factors such as television advertising.
(C) Most of the children in the group that had watched television were already familiar with the advertisements for these cereals.
(D) Both groups rejected cereals low in sugar even when these cereal were heavily advertised on television.
(E) Cereal preferences of adults who watch television are known to be significantly different from the cereal preferences of adults who do not watch television.

Please Explain... OA A
[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Fri May 28, 2010 2:50 am
vikramveer wrote:A recent study reveals that television advertising does not significantly affect children's preferences for breakfast cereals. The study compared two groups of children. One group had watched no television, and the other group had watched average amounts of television and its advertising. Both groups strongly preferred the sugary cereals heavily advertised on television.


Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?
(A) The preferences of children who do not watch television advertising are influenced by the preferences of children who watch the advertising.
(B) The preference for sweets is not a universal trait in human and can be influenced by environmental factors such as television advertising.
(C) Most of the children in the group that had watched television were already familiar with the advertisements for these cereals.
(D) Both groups rejected cereals low in sugar even when these cereal were heavily advertised on television.
(E) Cereal preferences of adults who watch television are known to be significantly different from the cereal preferences of adults who do not watch television.

Please Explain... OA A
[/spoiler]
Here the logical pattern is : survey claims that X doesnot cause Y. To weaken this we need to prove that X cause Y.

One way of doing it is going a "step ahead/ extending a link".

Option A says X causes Z and in turn Z causes Y. So we can strongly say X causes Y.

X: TV advt
Y:children's preferences for breakfast cereals.
Z: Impact of children who watched TV over the No-viewers.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 1:05 am
Thanked: 11 times

by jube » Fri May 28, 2010 2:52 am
Since the study says that advertising doesn't have any affect on the preferences, it implies that children who DON'T watch TV would come to choose the sugary cereals independently.

Hence, anything which shows that the selection was influenced in some way (however indirectly) by television would weaken this argument. Hence, A

or that's how I'm thinking anyway!

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:00 am
Thanked: 1 times

by vikramveer » Fri May 28, 2010 2:55 am
OA A I got the point I choose D which was incorrect... did not mention that in the initial post intentionally.... Thanks..