A famous foreign dictator recently triumphed in a lawsuit

E is best: Advertisers will want to use original speeches.



the assumption should form a link between premise and conclusion
the fact is that we should not be concerned as what is "more effective". please note that no where in the text the "more effective" things is discussed .
what would increase the cost of making advertisement? NOW because they are not allowed to use the "impersonators" the cost should not go up unless of course you use the "original" ----->this is what E is hinting at

+ I think the answer is B
Because if advertises have more effect then cost would decrease.

Is E) a valid assumption or unwarranted assumption?

seems valid though i would have liked had E written in a better way . let me tell you that this argument is based on a OG question in which the answer is : Advertisers will want to use original actors . (that argument is using actors and their impersonators )

I know this question is based on an OG question. I don't think E) can be correct.

As the question asked for unwarranted assumption, I took the question as an assumption which can be easily refuted.

B) is easy to refute but it supports the argument hence I picked up B.

ahh now i get ur confusion . look at the language of the stem : This conclusion is flawed because it makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions----------> notice the two negatives used in the question stem . here "unwarranted" does not mean "not valid" (as in what ur believing) .in fact the 2 negatives used in the tone that we have to finally point out the assumption of the argument .
in other words this question stem is similar to : what is the assumption of the argument !!

the question stem is assuming that this conclusion is flawed and hence calling it "unwarranted"

confused between A and C. Are not the ad agencies assuming that the audience can't tell the difference? And, isn't the assumption that the ad agencies will not be able to use available famous speeches a flaw?

I dont think I got this right. However, its better to try.
The assumption seems to be that the agency fears that dictators will file a case if any impersonators are used, so only dictators will be used for ads. Conclusion is ad costs will raise as dictators charge more. Stated concl is ad cost will increase. If it has to be flawed, conclusion becomes that ad cost will not increase.

So to support the flawed conclusion, the assumption has to be dictators will not be used, so costs will go down, else already only dictators are used for ads so there wont be any diff in ad costs(dont shoot up).

A) Most listeners cannot distinguish whether a speech is being performed by a famous dictator or an impersonator.
here no info if impersonation leads to lawsuit. So we dont know if agency will use dictators or impersonators.

B) Ads which use famous dictators are often more effective than those which use impersonators.
Here they say that not only dictators but also impersonators are used for ads already. So even if the ad is more effective with dictators, if dictators are used it leads to high cost.

C) Some famous speeches’ original versions cannot be licensed for commercial use.
No info about the choice of use, dictators or impersonators.

D) Booking agencies will continue using impersonators in place of famous dictators.
Yes, I feel so.. If agency continue to use impersonators, they are not scared about lawsuit. And the ad cost will be less. So conclution is flawed.

E) Advertisers will want to use original speeches.
Original speeches will be given only by dictators. So the cost of ad will go high.

Please let me know about my approach..

A famous foreign dictator recently triumphed in a lawsuit against his booking agency, which, after failing to find him at either his palace or his bunker, used a similar-looking impersonator to perform his rendition of a well-known trademark rant for a soft drink commercial.
Due to the outcome of that suit, advertisers will stop hiring impersonators for commercials. Thus, ad costs will increase because famous dictators charge more than impersonators do.

This conclusion is flawed because it makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions?

1: Dictator recently won a law against his agency for using a impersonator to perform his rendition of a well-known trademark rant for a soft drink commercial.
2: This would deter the agency from using an impersonator in future and hence increase the ad costs.
Assumption: Its is assumed that they would need famous dictator. What if they dont need them then impersonator would do fine and it would be less costly option.
E talks about that.

A) Most listeners cannot distinguish whether a speech is being performed by a famous dictator or an impersonator.
B) Ads which use famous dictators are often more effective than those which use impersonators.
C) Some famous speeches’ original versions cannot be licensed for commercial use.
D) Booking agencies will continue using impersonators in place of famous dictators.
E) Advertisers will want to use original speeches.

If advertises dont use original speech then they dont necessarily need the original dictator would. Fake will do perfectly fine


-

Answer is E because cost will increase as original speech will be required by agencies

ok..... I got this question understood wrong..

This conclusion is flawed because it makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions?
&
This conclusion is based on which of the following assumptions?

They are the same.. Try it..

This conclusion is flawed because it(stated conclusion) makes which of the following unwarranted assumptions?

That makes E as right answer.. Because conclusion believes that the ad agencies need orginal speech(given only by dictators)

I thought that we must find an assumption for the reverse of the conclusion as I found "conclusion is flawed"... My bad..

Great work aditya!Even i was not able to give out that there are two negatives in question stem.
Thank you!

use of negation on all options one by one,we see that only option E breaks the link between premise and conclusion and thus renders the conclusion meaningless.so correct answer option E