A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for

For the benefit of the forum readers, I guess it will be better that we put in our explanation for our answer choice.

Negate (E) The advertising industry will NOT use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

This will weaken the conclusion "advertising costs will rise, since famous singers’ services cost more than those of their imitators". Since well-known renditions of songs are not used in commercials, the advertising cost will NOT rise.

Answer is E.

Certainly E, for the reasons given above. The conclusion is that 'advertising costs will rise' because advertisers will pay more for songs, and if advertisers stop using songs altogether, the argument falls apart.

Curious where the question is from - surely it's based on Tom Waits' real life lawsuit against Frito-Lay?

IMO -E.
Reasons:
Premise1: Famous Singer won lawsuit because Advertising firm used Imitation singer
Premise2: Famous Singers service costs more than Imitation Singers service
Premise3: Advertising Firms will stop using Imitation Singer
Conclusion: Advertising costs will go up.

The above conclusion can be derived only if Advertising firms will use the well-know songs renditions which are sung by famous/Imitation singers. So that is the assumption... and Hence E

I was confused b/w B and E but finally gave in to E. I used negate method. Below is my explanation:
(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer’s rendition of a song from a good imitator’s rendition of the same song. --> This is not related to the conclusion. (B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers. - Logiscally this assumption makes sense but it is not related to the conclusion of the passage. (C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials. Not related or Out of scope(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers. It actually breaks the conclusion(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials. if this is not ture the argument itself is broken hence this is the answer

Though my doubt might be silly, I want to ask what is wrong with (C).

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.

OE:
C The lack of availability of some songs is not relevant to the rise in advertising costs.The same songs would not have been available even when production costs were lower

So, it is the above explanation which is 100% correct or it is the difference between rendition and song that plays some role.

Further to it,

I could say that if original versions of some well-known songs are available for use then advertising costs won't increase.

So what is the issue with the above.

(1). The use of 'some' and not 'all'.
(2). Usage of term 'song' and not 'rendition'.
(3). The one stated in OE as if this would have been the case then there was no logic of imitating the original artists, we could have used the available songs.

So all are the issues or only the one stated in OE?

Rgds,
TGC!

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.
The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer's rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

This one is the assumption question. Normally, when we try to solve any assumption question, then it comes some possible challenges in our head. does the possible challenge weaken the argument?
does the below weaken the argument?
>>The industry will use something different criteria for advertising, which costs the low cost than the famous singer.
>>There are some workers (they are paid only as a worker not for singing song) in this industry who sings exactly like the famous singer and they’ll be used for advertisement.
Thanks...

Hi can anyone explain why option C is a wrong choice? i was confused between C &E , and ended up choosing C

Posted from my mobile device

Can't understand why E is the answer. Please help GMATNinja

Per the pre thinking analysis we can think of 3 possible assumptions -

1. Advertising firms will stop using imitators and use the same rendition of a certain song
2. Remuneration of famous singer > Imitators in future.
3. Cost of production will remain the same in future...

Now, consider the last 2 lines

\(\)

Thus, from our pre thinking and from the last 2 lines only option (E) follows, Hence answer must be (E)

Conclusion: Advertising costs will rise
why? Because famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.
There itself is a gap in the argument.The author assumes that if the advertisers will stop using imitators, then they will be using the services of famous singers(Costlier) instead of some other cheaper alternative. So, our assumption will be along those lines.


It does not matter if most people cannot differentiate. If atleast one person differentiates, then there is probability of lawsuit. In addition, this option is not talking about cost implications.


The effectiveness of famous singers/Imitators is out of scope.It is the cost implication of these singers that matters.


The availability is out of scope. Even if they are available, there is no information provided to conclude that the advertisers will use these original versions.


Imitation of physical mannerisms of famous singers is out of scope.


This matches with our prethinking. Instead of going for some other alternative, Advertisers will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

I would like to add to Xylan 's explanation here.

Taking Option C as is seems as a mild strengthener. Because "SOME SONGS" are unavailable for the commercials, they might need to use the path of rendition by famous singers, since they can't use imitators.

Option C does help me increase my belief in conclusion and that is why we have confusion. But when we negate this option then it says " all original songs are available for commercials".

But to qualify option C as assumption, we need an explicit mention of the statement that the advertisers WILL USE or MAY USE original songs as well. Since, this information is unknown to us, we can say that the negation does not break down the conclusion and hence is a strengthener but not an assumption.

Premises: famous singer won a lawsuit; ad firms will stop using imitators in ads;
Conclusion: advertising cost will rise
Assumption (the conclusion is true IF) :
1. Companies will use a well-known rendition of songs;
2. There are no other options other than using well-known renditions of songs in ads

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?



(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song. – introduced a new premise; if this is true, it still doesn't tell us why the ad costs will rise

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers. – new premise
; if this is true, it still doesn't tell us why the ad costs will rise
(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials. – new premise
; if this is true, it doesn't confirm that ad costs will rise
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers. – the premise confirmed that the ad firms will not use imitators in ads; the assumption made is that the ad firms will use well-known rendition of songs

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials. – GOOD

Hello GMATNinja,GMATNinjaTwo,

Can you please suggest if my approach to eliminate option C is right.

My approach to the above problems:

Crux of argument:Advertising firms cost will rise because of hiring famous singers and not using imitators.

What to think before POE: What else must be true for the above conclusion to be valid..

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.

Irrelevant. Peoples concern doesnt matter to the conclusion.We are interested in knowing how it will impact the cost.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.

Hold on . Peoples concern doesnt matter to the conclusion.We are interested in knowing how it will impact the cost.
To some extent it strengthens .Lets try negation..
Commercials using famous singers are NOT usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
My be it is equally active ..may be not...any case after losing lawsuit I cant have imitators ..
Plus We are interested in knowing how it will impact the cost and it doesn't tell anything about it.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
Weaken.Opposite choice.
In that case ..to some extent it weakens the conclusion..This means we wont be able to have renditions of those famous songs.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
Irrelevant . Imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers--This doesnt impact the cost or conclusion.

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercial

Perfect!!
Negation gives The advertising industry will NOT use well-known renditions of songs in commercial
If the famous singers are not used then the cost will not rise and this will hurt the conclusion.
So this is something which must be true for the argument to hold.

A - how does this relate to the increase in advertising costs? if people are able to distinguish, then what will they do? Will they complain to the company that what you are doing is not good. The lawsuit was filed by a famous singer and not a viewer. eliminated.
B - effectiveness of advertisements is not talked about in the argument. eliminated.
C - the original versions of SOME songs are not available. how much is SOME? maybe 2 songs are not available. the advertising agency might use some other song. it is not mentioned in the argument that the agency needs to use some particular song. eliminated.
D - if the advertisers will continue to use the imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms. the argument does not talk about the body language of the famous singers. it talks about using the song of a famous singer sung by some imitator. eliminated.

E - the conclusion says that the advertising costs will rise. Why will they rise? If they stop using renditions of the songs, the costs might stay stable or even decrease. So the argument needs this assumption that they will keep using renditions of the songs. after the lawsuit, they will be forced to use the famous singer's voice which will cost more hence the rise in services. Perfect answer.

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?
First, I will check which options are irrelevant and can be cancelled out -

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song. - Distinguishing has nothing to do her

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers. - Can be. Lets put on hold

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials. - Irrelevant

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers. - If companies further use mimic, then cost will decrease and further additional lawsuits may attract.

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials. - Can be Lets put on hold

Now, lets negate the options B and E
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually not more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers. - If it would have been the case then commercials wouldn't hire imitators.
(E) The advertising industry will not use well-known renditions of songs in commercials. - This is infact weakening the conclusion. If Commercials are not going to use well-known songs, then there is no need to hire imitators also.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Can we say option d is correct if E isn't there by saying Cost of lawsuits + cost of imitators= high advertising cost