"People Meters", new devices attached to a relatively small sample of

"People Meters", new devices attached to a relatively small sample of TV sets to determine how many viewers watch programs, show smaller audiences for programs on the major television networks than did the previously used methods of telephone surveys and viewer diaries. Network officials argue that the lower number result from the fact that the people meters, which are located primarily in private homes, fail to take account of many young adults who regularly watch those programs in college dormitories and at military bases.

The network officials' argument depends on which of the following assumption?

CONCLUSION : "People Meters" show smaller audiences for programs on the major television networks than did the previously used methods of telephone surveys and viewer diaries.
CAUSE : people meters, which are located primarily in private homes, fail to take account of many young adults who regularly watch those programs in college dormitories and at military bases.

Here, the conclusion has the causation relation.Now, for such conclusions in a stimulus, assumption answer choices tend to work exactly like strengthen answer choices .The correct answer can :
1) Eliminate an alternate cause for the stated effect
2)Show that when the cause occurs, the effect also occures
3) show that when the cause does not occure, effect does not occur
4) Eliminate the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed
5) show that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate, or eliminate the possible problems with the data


A) People meters have been installed primarily on TV sets belonging to persons whose viewing habits were monitored in the past through telephone surveys and viewer dairies.
This option contradicts what is stated in the premise : " people meters, which are located primarily in private homes, fail to take account of many young adults who regularly watch those programs in college dormitories and at military bases." If the statement given in this answer choice is true, then People meters would also have been installed in the college dormitories and at military bases, in which viewing habits were monitored in the past through telephone surveys and viewer dairies.

Correct answer choice should not contradict any premise

B) Those programs for which people meters have found smaller audiences than did the previously used sampling methods are watched almost entirely by young adults.
This statement is not indispensible for the conclusion.Even if this is true / false, the conclusion is not affected

C) The previously used method of measuring TV audiences more adequately allowed for the viewers in college dormitories ad at military bases.
The given argument in this stimulus says that the diffence is because now the viewers in college dormitories ad at military bases. are not covered. Now , if we say that the previous method more adequately allowed viewers in college dormitories and at military bases , then there is ahigh possbility that the data by the people meters would be different becuase they dont consider the college dormitories and military bases.
Also, this answer choice conforms to (5) above : "shows that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate"

This is the correct answer.
We can also try negation technique:
Negated statement : The previously used method of measuring TV audiences did not more adequately allow for the viewers in college dormitories ad at military bases.

This weakens the conclusion, i.e., this gives a high chance , that the sample population can be same for both people meters and the telephone surveys/viewer diaries

D) The households where people meters are located will have to be changed over time, as people drop out of the sample and others replace them.
There is no connection between the changing of the people meters and the conclusion. Be this answer choice be true/false, it does not affect the conclusion

E) As a group, young adults maintain an intense loyalty to the same few televised program.
Here whether the people are viewing the same televised program or different programs does not matter. What matters is who are viewing the televised programs

The network officials argue that the new method fails to take into account many adults who watch these programs in dorms and military bases.

=> The assumption here is that the old method accounted for these people, else the overall number through the new methodology cannot fail.

Option C captures this and is therefore the best choice.

IMO C, good explanation -1 kudo for same

Can someone correct the wording of option C?
While it is the right option, the incorrect wording makes the selection process a bit difficult

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
I have a query regarding option A.
" People meters have been installed primarily on TV sets belonging to persons whose viewing habits were monitored in the past through telephone surveys and viewer dairies."
For comparison of data, domain of the people should be same.
Thus option A can be a required assumption.
Please explain.

Previous methods - showed larger viewership on major networks
People meters - show smaller viewership on same networks

Network officials' explanation - people meters, which are located primarily in private homes, fail to take account of many young adults who regularly watch those programs in college dormitories and at military bases

By saying that people meters do not account for college dorms and military bases and hence show smaller viewership, the network officials are assuming that previous methods took into account college dorms and military bases. Hence they show higher viewership.
Hence option (C) is correct.

(A) People meters have been installed primarily on TV sets belonging to persons whose viewing habits were monitored in the past through telephone surveys and viewer dairies.

The network officials are not assuming this; in fact they are assuming the contrary. Someone who insists that people meters are giving the right estimates would assume that both measure same people's viewing habits.

(B) Those programs for which people meters have found smaller audiences than did the previously used sampling methods are watched almost entirely by young adults.

We don't need these programs to be watched almost ENTIRELY by young adults. Just a sizeable portion would be good enough. Hence not an assumption.

Options (D) and (E) are irrelevant.

Answer (C)
_________________

Thanks VeritasKarishma for your explanation. Even I chose C confidently for these reasons that you mentioned.

I just have one small doubt (mostly silly) -
in option B-


Programs are watched almost entirely by young adults.

here, for a split second I got confused between these two meanings:
1. Programs are watched almost till the end by a group of people who are young adults. (I was sure that this is the intended meaning.)
2. Programs are watched mostly by a specific group of people in their entirety.

I know this doubt sounds super-silly but if you could please shed some of your thoughts on this? These subtle confusions can completely change the meaning of the sentences/options.

Are you talking about the distinction between
"Almost the entire program" was watched by young adults.
and
The program was watched almost entirely by young adults.

If yes, when we need to modify the program, it would be clearer for us to use the adjective "entire".

In any case, since how much of each program people watch is absolutely irrelevant to our argument, we can assume that the option doesn't talk about that since the composition of audience is far more relevant to us.
_________________

Thanks VeritasKarishma for clearing this up!

KarishmaB Ma'am,

Can you elaborate a bit on option B?
If the programs for which the people meters have found smaller audiences were watched entirely by young adults, then the network official's argument is strengthened. However, when we negate this option statement.
"Those programs were not watched entirely by young adults but by some other part of the population too". Our argument breaks down because the programs are now watched by the entire population, and Network Official's argument is weakened.

Please evaluate my reasoning.
Thanks

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.
_________________