When cable TV consumers evade cable access fees by purchasing illegal "pirated" cable boxes, a vicious cycle results. The use of pirated cable boxes by consumers forces cable companies to raise rates, which, in turn, leads more consumers to purchase pirated cable boxes in order to receive free cable programming.

The cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?

An increase in cable TV rates causes some consumers to cancel their service or reduce the number of premium channels to which they subscribe.
Some methods for detecting and disabling pirated cable boxes are effective at forcing pirated cable TV consumers to pay user fees or forgo cable TV programming, although the success rates vary considerably.
When cable TV executives establish cable access fees in order to generate an acceptable level of profit, they do not adequately account for revenue that will be lost through pirated cable use.
No one who routinely uses illegal pirated cable boxes can be induced by lower cable access fees to stop using pirated cable boxes unless fines for the use of such boxes are raised at the same time.
Cable TV consumers do not differ with respect to the cable access fees that would cause them to consider purchasing illegal pirated cable boxes.

OA says E, which is questionable.

Question looks like a MGMAT CAT question, for which the answer was B.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

The OA on this question is C (see this prior forum topic which shows C as OA: when-cable-tv-consumers-evade-cable-access-fees-by-30441.html).

The comment by rait_m is exactly right. This problem is asking you to identify "the assumption" that must be true to cause this cycle of pirating - rate hikes - more pirating - more rate hike - etc. C states that executives do not plan for the lost revenue from pirating. If we negate the assumption, saying that executives DO plan for some level of pirating, the cycle would not exist and we've essentially "destroyed" the conclusion. That makes C the correct answer.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manhattan GMAT: World-Renowned 99th Percentile Instructors & The Most Comprehensive Curriculum

The logic is: A leads to B leads to A and so on. I.e. the purchase of illegal "pirated" cable boxes leads to higher rates leads to the purchase of illegal "pirated" cable boxes.

An increase in cable TV rates causes some consumers to cancel their service or reduce the number of premium channels to which they subscribe.
Wrong. There may be other reasons for a higher piracy rate than cancellation.

Some methods for detecting and disabling pirated cable boxes are effective at forcing pirated cable TV consumers to pay user fees or forgo cable TV programming, although the success rates vary considerably.
Wrong. Out of scope because the argument says nothing about detecting/disabling pirate boxes.

When cable TV executives establish cable access fees in order to generate an acceptable level of profit, they do not adequately account for revenue that will be lost through pirated cable use.
Correct. If the company would account for the loss to piracy there won't be any need for higher rates after the "piracy adjustment"

No one who routinely uses illegal pirated cable boxes can be induced by lower cable access fees to stop using pirated cable boxes unless fines for the use of such boxes are raised at the same time.
Wrong. This would be the other way round: Less fees -> less piracy -> more rev -> less fees

Cable TV consumers do not differ with respect to the cable access fees that would cause them to consider purchasing illegal pirated cable boxes.
Wrong. Even if they would differ it would be possible that they do not differ enought so that a change to piracy would be prevented.
_________________

Hodor?

Kudo!