For several years, Nighttime News attracted fewer viewers than World

this question is from mahattan GMAT CR Book with detial explaination is available on page 66

the answer is C

I also think that the answer should be E since the author is assuming that the changes brought in by Nighttime News attracted new viewers which implies that the World News wasn't able to dish out anything new that could retain its viewers.

Can anyone please help with the explanation ?

Thanks

when you are negating c, why have you written "None of the users liked the ....." as er the original option c, negation should look like "None of the world news viewers liked the ......." now please explain your logic again as this CR is baffling me.

Yeah, missed the complete selection , but I guess this was implied. When I said some becomes none, that is applicable for world news viewers only.

Posted from my mobile device

But in that case negating c will not blow the argument. I think there is some issue with the question.

I didn't choose C because I thought that just rehashed the premise/evidence?
I chose E instead... which now looks weak.

(C) Some World News viewers liked the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked the World News programming.

This is the correct Choice - those who shifted from world news -- saw nighttime news now.

I hope C might be the answer.

I were able to crop down the options to B and C.

But when I tried to negate and check,

(C) Some World News viewers "DIN'T" liked the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked the World News programming.

This still holds the argument, as the number of viewers are even for both the channels. So viewers of World news dint like the nighttime's content.

(B) The programming content of Nighttime News is "NOT" more closely aligned with the interests of the overall audience than is the content of World News.

Here when we tried to negate, the argument falls. Because, if the nighttime contant is not aligned to viewer's interests, then how the number of viewers increased?

Please clarify..

You are negating arbitrarily, hence getting confused. Take a look at this thread

article-what-and-how-to-negate-6-exercise-questions-138510.html

c) Some-> None not didn't

What you did was not negation. If i say some people like ice cream. It includes the entire range 1 to 100 people. So it's negation is none of the people like ice cream and I cannot say that some of the people did not like ice cream, they might have, they might have not. This is incorrect way of negating.

Similarly you negated b incorrectly. Also, for the argument to hold true, an assumption is something that must be true, which is not the case for b as (a) It is not required for the content to be more aligned, this is additional information for which nothing has been given in argument to support and hence you cannot assume it. b) If you think carefully, It does not have to be overall, it needs to be a majority.

i still cant understand how 'C' is the right answer. For 'C' to be the right answer, we need to make another assumption that 'world news' and 'nighttime news' are only 2 news broadcasters.

Hi chetan2u / souvik101990,

Can you please post your views on this question. Answer choice C appears to be an Inference type answer rather than an Assumption.

Hi chetan2u,


I opted for E, which is wrong. I able able to comprehend why C is right but still want your opinion.
The only contender are B, C and E.
Lets discuss them one by one-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original option is

(B) The programming content of Nighttime News is NOW more closely aligned with the interests of the overall audience than is the content of World News.

If I add one word "now"---> Then it looks like an inference otherwise its not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the situation described

Two programmes are aired at the same time. A has more viewership than B, but after few changes in B, both have the same viewership.
conclusion:- people have switched from A to B.

If we prethink, how can we we make argument strong
1) A has not lower its quality
2) Total no of viewers are still same

eg- Previous viewer of A- 150
Previous viewer of B- 100
Total= 250
After changes its not B now has 150 and A too has 150
Its-- Those extra 50 viewer of A SWITCHED to B.

Now here comes E

(E) The quality of World News WILL REMAIN constant even if Nighttime News improves (ORIGINAL OPTION)

Modified Option-

(E) The quality of World News REMAINS constant even if Nighttime News improves .

Original option talks about future --> Which we are not concerned at all

We are only concerned about the quality of the of that period in which B (Nighttime ) made changes.

If modified version was the original option--> Then it would be correct (Therefore its a trap)

AM I RIGHT----

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now only option left is C.

C) Some World News viewers liked the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked the World News programming.

Actually I eliminated it because of the word "SOME"---> But actually we have to consider because we don't have better option

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is my reasoning correct..??
Please assist.

The Principle of Negation instructs you to use the Least Extreme Negation(LEN) when left btw 2 options. In otherwords, you must try to not negate extremely whle you are negating. In fact let your negation be least negated. But the dynamics is really tricky a little. In this question, Negation might make you choose B instead of C. Right? C is the right option. Why? Simply because it is the assumption that led to the conclusion.
The clearest assumption principle for me is THE ASSUMPTION MUST LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION AND FILL A LOGIC GAP IN THE ARGUMENT. only C does that.
If u thought about the assumption before looking at the options, u will think something like; FOR A SWITCH IN THE CONCLUSION TO OCCUR, THE GUYS THAT SWITCHED LIKED THE STATION THEY SWITCHED TO MORE THAN THE ONE THEY SWITCHED FROM. or could you, under normal circumstances, switch from a program you like to one u dont like? No u wouldn't

Hi PrakharGMAT
Well u were a bit wrong. yeah
Your prethink 2 was "total no of viewers hasnt changed" does not need to hold. the number can change very well while the switch remain validly due to programming changes. if we had 100 viwers and two persons died from shark bite then we will have 98. If A was 80 and B was 20. then a swithc occurs and 29 left A to B and B is now 49. Shark bit two A viewers' fingers and they died from the pain. and its now 49 to 49.

Secondly, if you de-futurize E to get "(E) The quality of World News REMAINS constant even if Nighttime News improves." then this is a tricky tense sometimes it is continues into the future but the argument has already happened so ANSWER MUST BE IN PAST TENSE! Also if the quality of WorldNews didnt remain constant and even improved but NN's programming out-improved WN's quality, then the conclusion remains valid. The switchers primarily loved what they swtched to more than what they swithced from, regardless of whether earth-shattering improvement occured as well in the one they left.

hi,
I am sure you meant someone else, while tagging me..
I was always with you on this..

Thanks a bunch.
I've tagged the person.

For several years, Nighttime News attracted fewer viewers than World News, which broadcasts its show at the same time as Nighttime News. Recently,the producers of Nighttime News added personal interest stories and increased coverage of sports and weather. The two programs no.w have a roughly equal number of viewers. Clearly, the recent programming changes persuaded viewers to switch from World News to Nighttime News.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author relies?
(A) Viewers are more interested in sports and weather than in personal interest stories.
(B) The programming content of Nighttime News is more closely aligned with the interests of the overall audience than is the content of World News.
(C) Some World News viewers liked the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked the World News programming.
(D) There are other possible causes for an increase in the number of viewers of Nighttime News, including a recent ad campaign that aired on many local affiliates.
(E) The quality of World News will remain constant even if Nighttime News improves.

it can happen in these case as well:
1. WN = 100 same as earlier
NN = old + new visitors (earlier = 50, new = 50)

WN = NN


2. WN =50 (earlier 100 reduced to 50)
NN = 50

WN = NN


E> The quality of World News will remain constant even if Nighttime News improves. => "Quality" is out of scope. We have to make certain assumptions here that quality of world new declined and that led to first case.

Negate C : Some World News viewers liked the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked the World News programming.
Some World News viewers NOT liked the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked the World News programming. if they didn't like the NN programming better that means they didn't switch. and that means case 1 or case 2 might happen, not what the conclusion author arrived at.