A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in

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?

Question type: Strengthen the argument

Conclusion: The complaints about the report is not responsible for the loss of viewers.

Task at hand: Find an option that shows that complaints about the report is not responsible for the loss of viewers.

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. In most cases, an option that offers someone else doing/experiencing the same thing is not an option that will strengthen. However, in this case, this is the best option of the lot. This option shows that reduction in viewership is a trend across the industry and that the report had nothing to do with it.

(B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs. Just the fact that the ones who complained are regular viewers is not enough for us to say that complaints about the report is not responsible for the loss of viewers.

(C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports. This is what many network news organizations may be doing. However, this doesn’t strengthen the argument. As a matter of fact, if we take this to be true, then it shows that complaints about the report are responsible for the loss of viewers after all. This would weaken.

(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. This may not be the first time that viewers complained about a controversial report on the economy. If this option had provided additional information that the viewership had not dropped at that time, then maybe this would have strengthened the argument.

(E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy. Irrelevant

- Nitha Jay

Excellent question,
(A) has a tough contender (D)
(A) wins because (D) fails to compare the intensity of controversial nature of the previous broadcasting of another controversial report on economy.

A. clear

this is X doesnt lead--->Y

i.e controversial prog doesnt lead to---> decrease in viewership.

we have to strengthen it. so any answer of the form that if cause is not there , effect is there as well will suffice.

option a perfectly macthes this pattern.

When no such cause(controversial prog)-->effect(decrease in viewership) is there.

hope it helps.

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

This kinda weakens the CAUSE and EFFECT relationship of decline in viewership and reported complaints due to some report.
This shows an existance of the EFFECT without the CAUSE (Controversial Report on Economy w/c was aired by the network in focus).


(B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs.
W: This strengthens the CAUSE & EFFECT relationship a bit by showing that those who complained are viewers of the network. We need something that Strengthens the argument and weakens the Cause and Effect relationship.

(C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports.

Hmm. When to attribute a complaint to drop in viewership and when not to? Doesn't do anything to the argument.


(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.
First time or second time. This has no bearing on proving the causal relationship.

(E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy.[/quote]
Primary source or not primary source. This has no bearing on proving or disproving the causal relationship.

A is the answer. It doesn't establish the argument air tight but it does help it a bit.

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 received many complaints about the 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.

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.

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.

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.

I was torn between A and C. My reasoning for C was that if the definition is true, then it basically confirms the existence of another factor that causes the loss in viewership (as they had complaints about the report). I guess answer A is just more evident as it actually offers an explanation to that factor - Is that why I should pick A over C?

From the passage, we know that:

• "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."

Despite these facts, the network "maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers."

To answer the question, we need to find an answer choice that supports the network's claim.

Take a look at (C):

From the passage, we know that the network DID receive a bunch of complaints about the report. So, if answer choice (C) were true, the network could well have attributed the drop in viewership to negative reactions to their own report.

Our task, however, is to support the claim that the drop in viewership is NOT related to complaints about the report. The only thing answer choice (C) does is limit the cases in which a network would tie a drop in viewership to their own reports. It does not provide any information that supports the network's claim that, in this case, the drop in viewership has nothing to do with negative reactions to their report. (C) is out.

Now take a look at (A):

This answer choice provides additional information that supports the network's claim that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers. If other networks also experienced a reduction in viewership, then there is likely some outside factor that caused people to not watch the news that week -- maybe the weather was really nice and everyone went outside, or maybe a large amount of people were suddenly quarantined with swine flu.

Whatever that outside factor was, it affected networks in addition to the one examined in the passage, which provides good evidence that the network's drop in viewership was not due to their controversial report, but rather to something else.

Answer choice (A) supports the network's claim, so (A) is our answer.

I hope that helps!

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja CrackVerbalGMAT GMATNinjaTwo BrightOutlookJenn

I think I am only one who choose E as the contender:(
I choose E because if it is their primary source of information ( they didn't say one of the primary source). It indicates me that as it is their primary channel so even if they complain about it , they are going to stick to this channel. I remember before when we used to have DD1 then whatever came on DD1 , we used to watch it even after complaining about it. Similar to other examples, when you are in a new country for next few days and you could not get vegetarian food except at one shop. Even that food is not delicious, we still eat it at that place even we don't like it because that is best option could be available . ( primary optin). I am not be full with secondary options .
I would not have chosen E if they would have mentioned "one of the primary "

Please help me out here . Is my thinking wrong on E?
I have no complaints against A:)

Hi mSKR,

Thanks for the tag.

Before considering any answer choices, clarify for yourself what you know for sure (the evidence) and what someone thinks is true or untrue (the conclusion). Remember that we always believe the evidence. The conclusion is what is up for debate.

We know:
1. There was a drop in viewership a week after a certain report aired.
2. There were a lot of complaints to the network about the report.

Someone says or believes:
- The complaints (and related negative reactions) did not cause the drop in viewership. #2 did not cause #1.

This is what's up for debate: did the negative reactions cause people to stop watching?

Specifically, we are asked to support the network's position, so we want to find something that helps prove that there was some other cause of #1.

You chose E.



What is this answer choice trying to do? It is trying to weaken THE EVIDENCE. It is trying to suggest that perhaps people did not actually stop viewing the network, that there was not a drop in viewership.
This cannot ever be the correct answer - it breaks a cardinal rule of Critical Reasoning: Always believe the evidence.

What can you take away from this question? After you read a CR paragraph, be sure to identify (as I did above) what is evidence and what is a conclusion. The evidence is never wrong. A correct answer choice will never try to strengthen or weaken the evidence. Evidence doesn't need help, nor can it be attacked. Rather, we need to shift our focus to the conclusion ... it is what someone thinks or claims is true, but we don't know for sure whether it is accurate. The conclusion is what we need to help (strengthen) or attack (weaken), depending on the question.

Does this help? Let us know.

VeritasKarishma Is it okay to assume that whatever happened with other networks could also have happened to the network in question. Based on this reasoning, I eliminated A.