Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 02 Jul 2015, 05:02

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A major network news organization experienced a drop in

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Posts: 81
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 137

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  13 Mar 2013, 12:06
If you were stuck between A vs D, here's my reasoning:

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

You have to ask yourself: If they lost viewership before, why in the world would they put out a controversial report again. Even the if the report was put out with intent, you have to consider the question stem - it asks "which MOST strongly supports the network's position" answer choice A beats D.

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. (correct)

This is much stronger than D because it shows that there was another reason as to why viewership dropped. There was an another occurrence.

Do realize though, if A wasn't an option D would be a good choice.
_________________

If my post has contributed to your learning or teaching in any way, feel free to hit the kudos button ^_^

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5682
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1413

Kudos [?]: 7325 [0], given: 186

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  13 Mar 2013, 20:28
Expert's post
DelSingh wrote:
If you were stuck between A vs D, here's my reasoning:

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

You have to ask yourself: If they lost viewership before, why in the world would they put out a controversial report again. Even the if the report was put out with intent, you have to consider the question stem - it asks "which MOST strongly supports the network's position" answer choice A beats D.

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. (correct)

This is much stronger than D because it shows that there was another reason as to why viewership dropped. There was an another occurrence.

Do realize though, if A wasn't an option D would be a good choice.

Actually, (D) shouldn't be considered at all. Let me discuss why.

Argument:
A network aired a controversial report.
It experienced a drop in viewership in the following week.
The network maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

We need to strengthen that the report had nothing to do with loss of viewers.

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

So we know now that they have aired controversial reports before and got complaints. First of all, (D) doesn't tell us that there was no loss of viewers when they aired controversial reports in the past. If there was loss of viewers in the past too, then the network's claim is not strengthened - if anything, it is weakened a little. Even if there was no loss of viewers in the past, the network's claim still doesn't get strengthened much because perhaps this time, the report was way beyond the tolerance level of people - we don't know. Remember, past doesn't predict the future accurately and the future doesn't need to mirror the past. Hence, more often than not, past events will not provide much support to the future events. But we only have the past as reference to what will happen in the future so sometimes we base our hypothesis on the past.

On the other hand, option (A) gives an alternative reason for the drop - some outside factor which is responsible for the viewership drop of many channels. This strengthens the network's position that the report was not responsible for the drop.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Manager Joined: 15 Mar 2013 Posts: 62 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 11 Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 31 Mar 2013, 00:10 My explanation to the causality is that: Suppose we have the causal reasoning i.e. - X causes Y. The option D is wrong because it only talks about X and not Y at all. Any answer choice that talks only about X or Y and the premises are linked, then that answer choice cannot be the answer choice. It cannot affect the argument at all. _________________ 'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.' Manager Joined: 20 Oct 2013 Posts: 77 Concentration: General Management, Real Estate Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 13 Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 26 Dec 2013, 04:10 I have another view regarding choice B: If those who registered complaints are regular viewers, loss in viewers might not be due to negative actions COZ regular viewers are those who won't easily quit viewing after some complaints. Why am I wrong? Senior Manager Joined: 15 Aug 2013 Posts: 331 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 23 Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 27 Apr 2014, 09:20 How can we tell that in A, the other networks did NOT air such controversial material? Is that not inferred? Meaning, if it was newsworthy information, wouldn't every network cover it? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5682 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1413 Kudos [?]: 7325 [0], given: 186 Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 27 Apr 2014, 20:21 Expert's post russ9 wrote: How can we tell that in A, the other networks did NOT air such controversial material? Is that not inferred? Meaning, if it was newsworthy information, wouldn't every network cover it? It is not given that anyone other than this network aired a controversial report. Every network has its own team of reporters and hence its own report on the state of affairs. The report of this network was controversial and disliked - it doesn't mean everyone aired the same report. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 38

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  07 May 2014, 04:27
Do we have a causal pattern here.

Premises seem to suggest that because some negative reports were aired(cause) -----> this lead to ------> decrease in viewership(effect)
However, Conclusion explicitly rules out the possibility that the decrease in viewership was caused by controversial report.

To strengthen the conclusion, I would assume that the scenario was a co-incidence.
And the only option that meets this assumption is Option A.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5682
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1413

Kudos [?]: 7325 [0], given: 186

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  07 May 2014, 19:26
Expert's post
honey86 wrote:
Do we have a causal pattern here.

Premises seem to suggest that because some negative reports were aired(cause) -----> this lead to ------> decrease in viewership(effect)
However, Conclusion explicitly rules out the possibility that the decrease in viewership was caused by controversial report.

To strengthen the conclusion, I would assume that the scenario was a co-incidence.
And the only option that meets this assumption is Option A.

Yes, your approach seems to be fine.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 25 Jul 2014 Posts: 20 Concentration: Finance, General Management GPA: 3.54 WE: Asset Management (Venture Capital) Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 52 A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 20 Sep 2014, 20:45 This is a typical strengthen question. The argument says X does NOT lead to Y. So one option to strengthen it is to say NOT X lead to Y ---> OA does so Intern Joined: 28 Jan 2013 Posts: 34 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3 Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 11 Oct 2014, 02:40 betterscore wrote: A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position? (A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. (B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs. (C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports. (D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network. (E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy. We need to strengthen the argument that the decrease in the viewership is not due to the negative reactions which are related to controversial report. Option can provide an alternate cause or historical data supporting this fact. Option C is against the argument. Option D gives some historical data but does not provide enough data to draw a conclusion Option E - I felt it is irrelevant Option B - Viewers who registered the complaint are regular viewers -> states that the viewers complained but there is nothing stated about viewership. Option A states that other news networks also faced reduction in viewership - I felt this is a shell game answer. Other channels had a drop in viewership we do not know the cause of that. May be they also telecasted a controversial report... and hence there is drop in viewership I felt there was no clear answer to pick. I am struck between A & B. Can someone help??? Thanks, Intern Joined: 28 Jan 2013 Posts: 34 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3 Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 11 Oct 2014, 02:40 betterscore wrote: A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position? (A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. (B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs. (C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports. (D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network. (E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy. We need to strengthen the argument that the decrease in the viewership is not due to the negative reactions which are related to controversial report. Option can provide an alternate cause or historical data supporting this fact. Option C is against the argument. Option D gives some historical data but does not provide enough data to draw a conclusion Option E - I felt it is irrelevant Option B - Viewers who registered the complaint are regular viewers -> states that the viewers complained but there is nothing stated about viewership. Option A states that other news networks also faced reduction in viewership - I felt this is a shell game answer. Other channels had a drop in viewership we do not know the cause of that. May be they also telecasted a controversial report... and hence there is drop in viewership I felt there was no clear answer to pick. I am struck between A & B. Can someone help??? Thanks, Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5682 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1413 Kudos [?]: 7325 [0], given: 186 A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink] 12 Oct 2014, 19:30 Expert's post gayam wrote: betterscore wrote: A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position? (A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. (B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs. (C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports. (D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network. (E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy. We need to strengthen the argument that the decrease in the viewership is not due to the negative reactions which are related to controversial report. Option can provide an alternate cause or historical data supporting this fact. Option C is against the argument. Option D gives some historical data but does not provide enough data to draw a conclusion Option E - I felt it is irrelevant Option B - Viewers who registered the complaint are regular viewers -> states that the viewers complained but there is nothing stated about viewership. Option A states that other news networks also faced reduction in viewership - I felt this is a shell game answer. Other channels had a drop in viewership we do not know the cause of that. May be they also telecasted a controversial report... and hence there is drop in viewership I felt there was no clear answer to pick. I am struck between A & B. Can someone help??? Thanks, Option (B) doesn't support the network's position at all. The option has no effect on the network's position. The network says that the report had nothing to do with the drop. We know that the network received many complaints. Option (B) tells us that regular viewers were the ones who complained. But did they stop viewing the channel, we don't know. Complaining and dropping out are two different activities and this option doesn't tell us whether they were linked in this case. But if regular viewers do drop out, it will affect the viewership of the channel. So the information given in (B) could be viewed to have a slight negative effect on the network's position. Another way of analyzing this could be that regular viewers will probably not drop out just because of one report. But then, it is possible that if the report was controversial, only regular viewers would complaint - the others would just not watch the channel again. In any case, we get almost no support for the network's position from this option. Option (A) shows you that some outside factor is at play since many networks experienced a drop. Hence it strengthens the network's position that the report was not responsible. Note that we have to strengthen the position, not establish it beyond doubt. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 29 Aug 2013
Posts: 14
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  29 Nov 2014, 05:15
Can someone please help me with the reasoning? I just highly doubt the OA answer and explanation and cannot come up why they think this answer is the best. Hopefully you can!

My line of reasoning was: the bad report (A) leads to (B1) a drop in viewership and to (B2) complaints
The conclusion says that the drop in viewership (B1) has nothing to do with the complaints (B2).

So should we not look for something that makes B1 and B2 "unequal" (something that says that B1 has nothing to do with B2)!??

For A, I concluded that this is out of scope. Why are we interested what happened to other networks?? I feel this is completely out of range!

Any help is much appreciated!

PS: On a side note, with the A (bad report) does not lead to B (loss of viewers) framework. How can we come up with that?? First, where do we account for the complaints? And second, according to the statement, A (bad report) DOES lead to B (loss of viewers). ??
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5682
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1413

Kudos [?]: 7325 [0], given: 186

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  30 Nov 2014, 21:45
Expert's post
mott wrote:
Can someone please help me with the reasoning? I just highly doubt the OA answer and explanation and cannot come up why they think this answer is the best. Hopefully you can!

My line of reasoning was: the bad report (A) leads to (B1) a drop in viewership and to (B2) complaints
The conclusion says that the drop in viewership (B1) has nothing to do with the complaints (B2).

So should we not look for something that makes B1 and B2 "unequal" (something that says that B1 has nothing to do with B2)!??

For A, I concluded that this is out of scope. Why are we interested what happened to other networks?? I feel this is completely out of range!

Any help is much appreciated!

PS: On a side note, with the A (bad report) does not lead to B (loss of viewers) framework. How can we come up with that?? First, where do we account for the complaints? And second, according to the statement, A (bad report) DOES lead to B (loss of viewers). ??

This is an Official Guide question so it is quite pointless to doubt the correctness of the answer. What we should focus on instead is why answer (A) is correct, the logic behind it and how we can use similar logic in other questions.

Complaints don't really have much to do with the question. Negative reaction to the report means people's dislike of the report. It isn't only the complaints received. So the conclusion is saying that the report is not responsible for the loss of viewers.

Also, I agree that usually, when we try to strengthen something by taking an example from 'out of scope situations', it is not correct. For example, if we are wondering whether a particular plan will succeed in country A, saying that another country has implemented it, doesn't strengthen the probability of the plan succeeding in country A. But a lot depends on the given argument. Note here that we are saying that an internal factor (the report) was not responsible for drop in viewership. So if we find that there was an external factor affecting all networks, then it does strengthen our argument that the report was not the culprit. Also, you have to choose the best answer and (A) is certainly the best of the given lot.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 237
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT Date: 05-27-2015
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 192

A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]  15 Feb 2015, 02:10
I was stuck between A and B, but at the end have selected choice A. Although it's a Strengthen question, we have 2 strategies here: 1. We can find an answer which strengthens a conclusion OR we can find an answer that weakens the CAUSE and EFFECT relationship (Drop in viewership <-- controversial report + complaints).

1)Drop in the vieweship because of --> controversial report with the following very large number of complaints regarding it
2)Conclusion: The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

I've found it easier to solve this question with the 1st strategy - Weaken the cause and effect relationship: according to the CR Bible strategies in such kind of relationships in the weaken questions, a solution could be to state an alternative cause fo the stated situation. Because when we see such a relationship on the GMAT, it says that the stated cause is THE ONLY possible one to cause the effect.

--> Choice A gives us an alternative cause for the drop in viewership: other network has also faced drops ... IN THE SAME WEEK.

I hope it helps to solve this question. Experts please response if you don't think it's a correct strategy.
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

A major network news organization experienced a drop in   [#permalink] 15 Feb 2015, 02:10

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 35 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 A major sports programming network 1 08 May 2014, 04:53
1 A minor league baseball franchise experienced a drop in 4 27 Mar 2013, 14:29
As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one 5 19 Nov 2005, 14:27
As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one 5 21 Oct 2005, 04:26
As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one 6 03 Sep 2005, 01:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by