Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo

I am still unable to understand the technical language that is used in this question. Licensing, Advertising, Circulation - how is it linked together & what does the last part endangering other revenues mean?

There is a magazine named Kitchen Magazine.

What do you understand from this? Kitchen Magazine would publish certain stuff related to cookware or cooking articles. It will receive advertising revenues from manufacturers who want to advertise their cookware.
Now, this Magazine itself is launching its own cookware. And it is using its own brand name that is the magazine name for this product. For example if the Magazine Name is Kitchen, The product name is also Kitchen Frypan.

There are 2 conditions it needs to evaluate before taking this decision.

Imagine a situation where-
Situation 1:

This new product, Kitchen Frypan is not of a good quality. It just breaks even after careful use. The customer service is also not good.
Do you think this may also affect the sale of the magazine. Yes it will. People will have an opinion that the magazine has looted them and has launched a faulty product. Thus this may affect their subscription fees as less people will buy the magazine.
However. the company has tested the product extensively and has come to a conclusion that there can be no fault in the product.

Situation 2: This is our assumption. It is not discussed in the question.

There are other kitchenware manufacturers who advertise in the magazine. Say competitor Prestige Fry pan. Now don’t you think the other manufacturers may hesitate to advertise their brand in a competitor’s magazine. Because the magazine would be biased to provide exclusive coverage to its own products.

But this is not mentioned in the argument. The argument simply ignores this or assumes that situation 2 wold not occur. So this our right answer-

(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Conclusion: Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

The conclusion is causal although it has "without" that is a necessary condition marker.

This is because of the implicit causal relation between collecting and endangering.

Causal
Kitchen collect revenues.
Effect
No danger to revenues.

Causal statement
Kitchen can collect does not lead to endangering revenues.

We have to show that x does lead to y.

Choice C:
Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.
Negation
Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Conclusion
Kitchen's collection will lead to a danger in revenues.

Doesn't the negation of option A contradict the conclusion?

No, anshgupta, regardless of how you negate option (A), it would not contradict the conclusion. Note that the premise for the conclusion is that experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen (my italics). Take a look at (A) again:


The answer choice does not specify cookware advertised in the magazine, just cookware. There could very well be superior cookware that is not advertised in the magazine, and the existence of such cookware would have no bearing on the argument as presented.

Watch those modifiers, and when evaluating answer choices, stick to exactly what the passage says. (Associative reasoning can get you into trouble quickly.)

- Andrew

Can't eliminate the option B. If we negate option B, then it affects the argument. Here is how. If they license it and the product is bad, it affects the reputation or advertisement, which in turn affects their revenue, thereby undermining the conclusion that licensing will not affect their revenue.

You've introduced a pretty big 'if' into that argument, though. We don't know they'll license a bad product--and in fact, it seems they're being meticulous about only endorsing good products. So a negated B *on its own* does not ruin the argument.

Understanding the argument -
Conclusion - The kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues. Oh wait? what is this other revenue? This is the revenue that Kitchen magazine gets from other advertisements. Okay, so it says, "The kitchen can collect licensing fees without hampering the revenues from other cookware companies. Interesting.
Basis of conclusion? Because - experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in the Kitchen.

What can weaken the argument- what if other companies don't like the brand name to be associated with one cookware and they pull out? So we have to guard the argument against such weakener.

Option elimination -

(A) No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. - At best, it's a strengthener. But will it be an assumption? Let's negate it. But remember, we have to respect the facts in the argument. Okay, back to our negation. Another line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. So we said to respect the facts. This is not compared with the products in the Kitchen; it's comparing with products other than Kitchen. We don't know the customer's response to this product compared to other products outside of Kitchen. So, the conclusion is still valid. We need an assumption whose negation will shatter the conclusion.

(B) Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware. - out of scope.

(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. Ok.

(D) Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name. - Strengthener

(E) Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines. - But this doesn't talk about licensing revenue/other revenue? No. Out of scope.