If the ad agency that created the television ad for Tough-As-Nails Too

I say B

because the argument is based on the assumption that those tools most frequently are used by men...

B weakens this argument by saying that there are many woman who use those tools and that is why that tv ad was aired during cooking program..

@dwivedys
based on "CR bible by Powerscore" You cant reject A just because it contains NEW INFO. Lets keep A as a Contender.
@SimaQ
talk of B .. the premise states ".. they would have realized that the majority of frequent tool users are men" hence its not an assumption ... option B says MANY women .. OCCASIONALLY use .." it doesnt say "MANY women .. FREQUENTLY use ... "
C) can be easily eliminated
D) What put me off on D was...
SOME men, including some who use tools frequently, OCCASIONALLY watch cooking programs.
E) can be easily neglected

even if but you may want to keep D as contender.... between A n D .. can reject D coz some .. occasionally ...

If the ad agency that created the television ad for Tough-As-Nails Tools had thoroughly researched customer demographics, then they would have realized that the majority of frequent tool users are men. Yet the ad was shown during a cooking program targeted to women. However, if the advertisers had not researched customer demographics, then the ad would not have incorporated images depicting the use of tools in home improvement projects as an activity that men enjoy. Yet the ad did so. Therefore the ad agency made some sort of mistake: either the agency did not understand the demographics of the cooking program's audience or the ad was intended to be shown during a different program.
Which one of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

Take away: If ad researchs, tool com. realizes "men" as users. YET it is on the women program. If not man objective, not create men content. BUT, ad has men content. Conclusion: ad mistakes cause either 1.) not understand the program or 2) was intended to do in different program.

A. The purchasers of products given as gifts are not the ultimate users of those products. --> suggests that it is not because of those 2 reasons in the conclusion BUT it is because the tool com. targets at others besides the ppl on the research. So it is WEAKEN.
B. Many women, including those who watch cooking programs, occasionally use tools for home improvement projects. --> They are talking about frequent users ("majority of frequent tool users are men" on the premise).
C. The ad agency had never previously aired an ad during a program other than the one intended. --> "previously" is irrelevant.
D. Some men, including some who use tools frequently, occasionally watch cooking programs. --> same as B. Occasional(ly) user is not the frequent users.
E. The ad agency has a reputation for conducting high quality demographic research. -->reputation is irrelevant.

This is a repeat of answer C with a different twist. Infallibility is not a reasonable assumption when data contradicts that assumption.

The answer is unequivocally A.

I guess this question has already been discussed at length, but I just wanted to point out why you can eliminate B instantly. The question already says "the majority of frequent tool users are men", so in other words, a minority of tool users are women. So the stem already tells us that women occasionally use tools. Answer B just restates a premise of the argument, and you can't weaken an argument by restating one of its premises!

I don't like answer A much, because as one person mentioned above, what it says is self-evidently true; people who give tools as gifts obviously aren't generally going to be using those tools. But A is the only answer that gets at the right idea, at least: the people who buy products are not always the people who use those products, so the advertising company might have known what it was doing after all. A should really read something more like "tools are often given as gifts", in which case it would have been fine.

This is “weaken question”, the key is always how to translate the conclusion correctly. If you don’t understand the intended meaning of the conclusion, it’s hard to solve the question.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS.

The logic of the question is:

* If the ad agency understood the demographics (the majority of frequent tool users are men) --> the ad would NOT be shown during “women” program.
* If the ad agency did NOT understand the demographics --> the ad would NOT incorporated “men” images. But the ad did have “men” images. That the ad agency did not understand the demographics is a wrong logic.

Conclusion:
There are two scenarios:
(1) the agency did not understand the demographics of the cooking program's audience
--OR--
(2) the ad was intended to be shown during a different program.

Assumption: The above two scenarios CAN’T happen simultaneously.
To weaken the conclusion: You need to demonstrate that the two scenarios CAN happen simultaneously.

ANALYZE EACH OPTION.

(A) The purchasers of products given as gifts are not the ultimate users of those products.
Correct. A means the ad agency knows the final users are men (understand the demographics), but the purchasers are usually women (intended to show the ad on cooking programs). Thus, A weakens the conclusion by showing that both scenarios above can happen simultaneously.

(B) Many women, including those who watch cooking programs, occasionally use tools for home improvement projects.
Wrong. B supports the second scenario that the ad was intended to be shown during a different program. (The ad agency targets at women as potential customers). But B says NOTHING about the first scenario. Thus, B can’t weaken the conclusion.

(C) The ad agency had never previously aired an ad during a program other than the one intended.
Wrong. Same error as in B. C supports the second scenario but says NOTHING about the first. Thus, C can’t weaken the conclusion.

(D) Some men, including some who use tools frequently, occasionally watch cooking programs.
Wrong. Same error as in B. D mentions that some men occasionally watch cooking programs, thus the ad agency did have intention to show the ad on those program. D supports the second scenario but says NOTHING about the first. D can’t weaken the conclusion.

(E) The ad agency has a reputation for conducting high quality demographic research.
Wrong. E does not weaken the conclusion as it does not show the correlation between demographic research and intention to show the ad on cooking programs.

Hope it helps.

TAKE AWAY:
For Weaken/Strengthen questions, Conclusion is KEY.

Nsentra Bunuel carcass

What is the source of this ques?

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.