Tough CR

[Naruto]

Advertisers are often criticized for their
unscrupulous manipulation of people’s tastes
and wants. There is evidence, however, that
some advertisers are motivated by moral as
well as financial considerations. A particular
publication decided to change its image from
being a family newspaper to concentration on
GMAT and violence, thus appealing to a different
readership. Some advertisers withdrew their
advertisements from the publication, and this
must have been because they morally disapproved
of publishing salacious material.
Which one of the following, if true, would most
strengthen the argument?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements
to other family newspapers.
(B) Some advertisers switched from family
newspapers to advertise in the changed
publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their product
sales to increase if they stayed with the
changed publication, but to decrease if
they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers
are not likely to buy newspapers
that concentrate on GMAT and violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication
would appeal principally to those
in a different income group.

OA later. Please explain your answer

[madhur_ahuja]

Clear C. It establishes that withdrawl of advertisement was done even when they were aware of financial aspects. This statement strengthens :

There is evidence, however, that
some advertisers are motivated by moral as
well as financial considerations

[pandeyvineet24]

yes it should be C.
Only C explains that the advertisers would have gained from the publication if they would have stayed with it. There must be a Moral motive to move away from publication.

[sumank8216]

C.

Advertiser's withdrew even when it lead to thier loss, so clearly they make thier decisions on morals.

[kate.loo]

C is the most suitable option in this case