|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 99
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
A recent study reveals that television advertising does not [#permalink]
 16 Sep 2005, 10:05
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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 humans 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 853
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 1
|
A for me. Logic: If the preferences of children who didn't watch TV are influenced then that explains the choice of the same cereal by both groups.
B- doesn't follow from the results of the study, actually it contradicts.
C- doesn't add or detract from the study
D- contradicts study results
E- doesn't add or detract from the study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 99
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
anandsebastin wrote: A for me. Logic: If the preferences of children who didn't watch TV are influenced then that explains the choice of the same cereal by both groups.
B- doesn't follow from the results of the study, actually it contradicts.
Can you elaborate on B not working? If it contradicts, doesn't that mean it's weakening?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 122
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I picked A - A shows a how it is possible for a child who doesn't watch television to still be influenced by television adds. B seems out of scope of the argument to me, and doesn't tell me how it is possible for children who don't view advertisments to still be inflenced by them. Which is what we want to do to weaken the arguement.
_________________
Chet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Hyderabad
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
A for me too.
B is kind of vague. It says that TV advertisements can be one of the possible reasons and so, not really strong.
However, A is quite strong in the sense, it says that kids who watch tv ads influence the kids who do not and hence, the other set also preffered the cereal.
OA/OE Plz.
Krishna
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 17
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
A for me. Same reason as above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 853
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 1
|
eastcoaster9 wrote: anandsebastin wrote: A for me. Logic: If the preferences of children who didn't watch TV are influenced then that explains the choice of the same cereal by both groups.
B- doesn't follow from the results of the study, actually it contradicts.
Can you elaborate on B not working? If it contradicts, doesn't that mean it's weakening? If B were true, then the group that watched the ads should have a higher level of preference for the sugary cereal than the control group which didn't watch ads. This didn't happen in the study. So, the conclusion is correct and this statement only adds to it.
I made a fault there. B actually supports! Thanks for pointing it out eastcoaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 258
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
A for me too. It corrupts the study findings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 810
Location: Singapore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
A it is!
_________________
Cheers, Rahul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 335
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Straight A.
GA
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1741
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
I will pick A.
OA please.
_________________
hey ya......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
IMO A is the only answer that breaks the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 407
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
A for me...
OA plz..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
