Fact 1: Television advertising is becoming less effective: the proport

IMO:- E

Between D & E

Suppose In 1 hr movie, there are 4 ad breaks and each ad break there are 12 Nos ad. Therefore Total ads/movie aired are 4X12=48 Nos. Out of those 48 Nos, as per argument people would remember 2 ads/ breaks i.e. 2X4=8 Nos.

Now choice D says : Clusters /Ad breaks get increased. So ad breaks increased to 6 Nos. Now people would remember 2X6=12 Nos which is more than original 8 Nos. This is going against the argument.

Choice E :-Ads get increased.So now per ad break there are now 16 ads/break and 3 ad breaks.People would remember 2X3=6 Nos ads in this scenario which is going with the flow of argument which says that advertising is becoming less effective (Fact1)- Correct

ChiranjeevSingh Please validate the reasoning

(D)The average number of clusters of consecutive commercials per hour of television is increasing
Clusters of consecutive commercials could be small or big i.e. there could be 2 ads or 10 ads. We do not know that.
Also if the cluster of ads is increasing then there can be two scenarios:
1st: when the same ads are being repeated.
If this is the case, then it would reinforce the brand names because you will be watching the same brands again and again.

2nd: When ads are different everytime. It would become difficult to recall except what is seen first and last.

(E) The average number of television commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials is increasing
If the number of ads increase in a cluster then it becomes hard to recall the clutter of brands. Thus it supports fact 1.

What E is clearly showing that because most people recall less during ads that appear in the middle, and because there are more of these clusters most will forget most of they saw and will probably only tend to remember brands advertised in the first and last ad of a cluster.

Fact 1
TA ==> less effective
less recall no of brands
Fact 2
first and last I remember, middle I forget.

(D) The average number of clusters of consecutive commercials per hour of television is increasing.
opposite effect.

(E) The average number of television commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials is increasing.
if E is true, it can explain fact 1. more no. of consecutive commercial and more they forget.

The clue to the answer lies in Fact 1- i.e. the proportion of \(\frac{# of Brand names viewer remember}{total brand advertised}\) is decreasing

if # total brand advertised is increasing in a cluster ( as per fact1) then the denominator will increase. and this increase combined with Fact2 will validate the Fact 1.

So is the reason option D is wrong and option E is correct.

This question is to explain Fact1 with Fact2. But it can't be completely explained. What is worse? Fact2 says that only the head and tail can be remembered, and fact1 says that the proportion of ads that are remembered has dropped.
OK, think about it, the head and tail can remember, the decrease in the ratio indicates that the total number has become larger, so the number of advertisements that should be untenable is increasing, that is, the number of advertisements in the middle is increasing. That is the answer E.

Fact 1: Television advertising is becoming less effective: the proportion of brand names promoted on television that viewers of the advertising can recall is slowly decreasing.

Fact 2: Television viewers recall commercials aired first or last in a cluster of consecutive commercials far better than they recall commercials aired somewhere in the middle.

Fact 2 would be most likely to contribute to an explanation of fact 1 if which of the following were also true?

CATCH: an answer choice that contributes to the conclusion that promotion is less effective due to people not recalling advertisements in the middle of cluster.

(A) The average television viewer currently recalls fewer than half the brand names promoted in commercials he or she saw.
INCORRECT because if the viewer is recalling fewer than half, it still could be more than just the ones aired last or first.

(B) The total time allotted to the average cluster of consecutive television commercials is decreasing.
TRAP ANSWER. It is very possible that people do not recall because the time per advertisement has decreased. But we are not looking for a reason why "not recalling" happens.

(C) The average number of hours per day that people spend watching television is decreasing.
IRRELEVANT. We are concerned about viewership of commercials specifically.

(D) The average number of clusters of consecutive commercials per hour of television is increasing.
TRAP ANSWER. We are concerned about the number of advertisements not their clusters shown per hour.

(E) The average number of television commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials is increasing.
CORRECT. If the number of ads per cluster are more and people can recall only the ones at beginning and end, then the proportion of commercials recalled becomes less. Thus less effective promotion.

KUDOS if this helps!

Option D---> fact 1 talks about the proportion of brand names that viewers of the advertising can recall. As per the above explanation, the proportion remains the same.
Original ratio = 8/48 = 1/6
New ratio =12/72 =1/6

So viewers recall the same proportion of brand names in case of D.

Fact 2: Television viewers recall commercials aired first or last in a cluster of consecutive commercials far better than they recall commercials aired somewhere in the middle.

If the total number of commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials= N
Then, the proportion of advertisements that a viewer can recall far better than normal = 2/N

(E) The average number of television commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials is increasing-- this tells that our denominator N is increasing. Thus it helps explains fact 1.

Answer E

VeritasKarishma - Can you please this question in more detail?

Thanks,
Anshul P

Proportion of brand names is decreasing means
Before can recall : 10 out of 20 = 50%
Now : 10 out of 100 : 10%



Before Recall : first 5 and last 5
Now recall: first 5 and last 5





>>Wrong: they still recall 10


>>time is not mentioned


>> average number of hours per day is out of scope


>>consecutive commercials per hour= out of scope


>>Yes: as per our analysis

Hello Experts,

I have a slight confusion here. I was confused between B and E only.

E says that the number of ads have increased in a cluster and that is the reason why people remember the 1st and the last ad.

B says, the avg time for the ads in a cluster has decreased. Is this not possible that people are not able to remember the ads as the ads are not shown for the considerable amt of time for people to remember? Its almost like playing too many ads for shorter duration? Is my understanding correct?

You already answered yourself : Is this not possible that people are not able to remember the ads as the ads are not shown for the considerable amt of time for people to remember?
Say YES: not possible . But still people can remember first and last . Why? beccause that's what is given.
Say NO: Possible: say people can remember ; Again a question? what can they remember? first and last .
so till now i don't get any useful information for my aim to handle this question.
What is my aim? --> Fact 2 is part of fact1
fact 2 is : remember first and last . fact1: can remember only less proportion

coming back to B to kill this option.
B says: the avg time for the ads in a cluster has decreased ( understood by you)
still they remember 1st and last ad.
But i don't have information to conclude whether time per ad is ALSO decreased? IF yes--this option strengthens what we are looking for . remember first and last ; before if 5 ads but now 10 ads, so proportion is reduced.
But it maybe possible that time per ad remain same. before 5 ads, now due to reduced time , only 3 ads, before can remember 2/5 now can remember 2/3. This way it weakens the conclusion.
Overall, the information in B is useless for me to reach to any conclusion. I can think in any direction and i have no extra information to assert my claim.

Try the same thing for E. You won't be able to move other side, you can only strengthen the claim because you have clear information that ads per cluster have increased. Thats what we need and thats what is given . So E wins.

Hope it helps:)

Hi,
Can someone clarify the answer to this question, in the sense that an assumption is needed on our part that the amount of ad time in a given hour of TV does not increase? (i.e there cant be an increased number of multiple clusters of ads)

actually question is straighforward but there are some twists and turns .please check highlight part once again.

Fact 1: Television advertising is becoming less effective: the proportion of brand names promoted on television that viewers of the advertising can recall is slowly decreasing.
Note: proprotion: it means number of commercials recall/ total number of commercials published
proprition can be decreased: if really people could not recall OR publish number is increased

Fact 2: Television viewers recall commercials aired first or last in a cluster of consecutive commercials far better than they recall commercials aired somewhere in the middle.
recall only 1st and last in a CLUSTER. if i increase ads in each cluster then result would be less recall proportion

Fact 2 would be most likely to contribute to an explanation of fact 1 if which of the following were also true?
in what scenarios fact1 and fact2 can be valid

with this understanding, only E makes sense.
E says:the number of ads in each cluster has increased. it means recall proportion is decreased because people still reember 1st and last in each cluster but now total number of ads per cluster are more

I hope it helps

Was stuck between D&E.

See image attached.

If there's an issue with the math, do let me know haha

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.