Dictator in Ads- Experts pls help with this specific doubt

[rahulvsd]

A famous foreign dictator recently triumphed in a lawsuit against his booking agency, which, after failing to find him at either his palace or his bunker, used a similar-looking impersonator to perform his rendition of a well-known trademark rant for a soft drink commercial. Due to the outcome of that suit, advertisers will stop hiring impersonators for commercials. Thus, ad costs will increase because famous dictators charge more than impersonators do.

This conclusion is flawed because it makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions?
Choices
A Most listeners cannot distinguish whether a speech is being performed by a famous dictator or an impersonator.

B Ads which use famous dictators are often more effective than those which use impersonators.

C Some famous speeches' original versions cannot be licensed for commercial use.

D Booking agencies will continue using impersonators in place of famous dictators.

E Advertisers will want to use original speeches.

OA:
E. This is very similar to an OG question. I have a doubt with option C. If we remove the word ' some ' from the option, will the choice then become a strong contender to be the answer ?

[garima99]

A famous foreign dictator recently triumphed in a lawsuit against his booking agency, which, after failing to find him at either his palace or his bunker, used a similar-looking impersonator to perform his rendition of a well-known trademark rant for a soft drink commercial. Due to the outcome of that suit, advertisers will stop hiring impersonators for commercials. Thus, ad costs will increase because famous dictators charge more than impersonators do.

This conclusion is flawed because it makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions?
Choices
A Most listeners cannot distinguish whether a speech is being performed by a famous dictator or an impersonator.: not relevant

B Ads which use famous dictators are often more effective than those which use impersonators.not relevant,this does not prove that they are not costly

C Some famous speeches' original versions cannot be licensed for commercial use.not relevant

D Booking agencies will continue using impersonators in place of famous dictators.not relevant

E Advertisers will want to use original speeches.: as they dont want to use dictators conclusion is flawes

OA:
E. This is very similar to an OG question. I have a doubt with option C. If we remove the word ' some ' from the option, will the choice then become a strong contender to be the answer ?

[mankey]

Not able to understand the stimulus, could someone please explain what it is trying to say? And also how E is OA.

Thanks
Mankey

[GmatKiss]

Why not A!!

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

A famous foreign dictator recently triumphed in a lawsuit against his booking agency, which, after failing to find him at either his palace or his bunker, used a similar-looking impersonator to perform his rendition of a well-known trademark rant for a soft drink commercial. Due to the outcome of that suit, advertisers will stop hiring impersonators for commercials. Thus, ad costs will increase because famous dictators charge more than impersonators do.

This conclusion is flawed because it makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions?
Choices
A Most listeners cannot distinguish whether a speech is being performed by a famous dictator or an impersonator.

B Ads which use famous dictators are often more effective than those which use impersonators.

C Some famous speeches' original versions cannot be licensed for commercial use.

D Booking agencies will continue using impersonators in place of famous dictators.

E Advertisers will want to use original speeches.

OA:
E. This is very similar to an OG question. I have a doubt with option C. If we remove the word ' some ' from the option, will the choice then become a strong contender to be the answer ?

the question is funny, but poorly worded (at least the answer choices are) - it is not clear what they mean by "original speech". From the choice of E, I gather that whoever wrote the question takes "original speech" to mean "a speech rendered by a live dictator". when reaching the conclusion that the ad prices will increase because dictators charge more, the argument assumes that advertisers will still use ads with dictators even though they are more costly. If the advertisers decide to drop the dictator ad concept altogether, ad prices will not increase. Thus, E is indeed an assumption that the argument makes - if by "original speech" the argument means "speech with dictators".

For that same reason, C would've been a contender if it did not include the wishy-washy word "some" and specified that the original versions cannot be used for ad campaigns. when reaching the conclusion that the ad prices will rise, the argument assumes that there's no other way but to hire an expensive dictator, so an answer choice such as C which closes this loophole (Using the speeches original version is another way of circumnavigating the expensive dictator problem) is a possible. I would still go with E in that case, as C is an assumption that is too specific.