Advertisers are often
criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants.
There is
evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations.
A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership.
Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and
this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.Which one of the following, if true, would most
strengthen the argument?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers.
>> There can be other reasons to move out such as profit was less, new audiences were not receptive, etc.
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
>> Not relevant.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.>> Now that's a big sacrifice
even though there was higher profit they opted to move out. Makes it better than A.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.
>>Opposite of what v r looking for.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.
>> Not relevant.