Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
31 May 2020, 00:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
The correct answer is option E.
Understanding the passage
- a famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising company
- Reason: For using an imitator (some other singer singing the original singer's song) in a commercial
- Result: advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials
- Conclusion: Ad costs will rise
- Rationale: famous singers' services cost more than services of imitators
Question Stem: Find the assumption
Pre-Thinking
Falsification Question: In what scenario would ad costs not increase?
Given that:
1. Because of the lawsuit, ad firms will stop using imitators to sing artists' songs in commercials
2. Singers/Artists charge more for their services than imitators
Falsification Condition:
What if as a result of this lawsuit, the ad firms stop using songs in commercials?
Then, they would not have to pay singers at all, as they would not be using their songs. In such a case, the ad expenses would not rise. This would break the conclusion.
Assumption: The ad firms will continue to use songs by singers in their commercials.
Option Choice Analysis
(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.
This would probably be the reason why imitators are used. But this will not explain why ad expenses will rise post lawsuit.
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
Not really relevant. The argument pertains to ad expenses, effectiveness of the commercials is out of the scope.
(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
Actually not relevant. The same songs would not have been available even before the lawsuit (when costs were lower). So, this segment (songs that are unavailable) do not contribute to the rise in costs in anyway. Hence, not relevant.
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
This goes against the facts of the argument. We are already given that ad firms will stop using imitators in their commercials altogether (whether it is for imitating the singing or imitating the physical mannerism)
(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.
In line with what we analyzed. Well known renditions of songs = well known imitation versions of the songs. Essentially, this option is telling us that the ad firms will continue to use imitations (renditions) of songs in their commercials. This corresponds to our pre-thinking analysis. Correct choice!
Hope this helps.
Understanding the passage
- a famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising company
- Reason: For using an imitator (some other singer singing the original singer's song) in a commercial
- Result: advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials
- Conclusion: Ad costs will rise
- Rationale: famous singers' services cost more than services of imitators
Question Stem: Find the assumption
Pre-Thinking
Falsification Question: In what scenario would ad costs not increase?
Given that:
1. Because of the lawsuit, ad firms will stop using imitators to sing artists' songs in commercials
2. Singers/Artists charge more for their services than imitators
Falsification Condition:
What if as a result of this lawsuit, the ad firms stop using songs in commercials?
Then, they would not have to pay singers at all, as they would not be using their songs. In such a case, the ad expenses would not rise. This would break the conclusion.
Assumption: The ad firms will continue to use songs by singers in their commercials.
Option Choice Analysis
(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.
This would probably be the reason why imitators are used. But this will not explain why ad expenses will rise post lawsuit.
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
Not really relevant. The argument pertains to ad expenses, effectiveness of the commercials is out of the scope.
(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
Actually not relevant. The same songs would not have been available even before the lawsuit (when costs were lower). So, this segment (songs that are unavailable) do not contribute to the rise in costs in anyway. Hence, not relevant.
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
This goes against the facts of the argument. We are already given that ad firms will stop using imitators in their commercials altogether (whether it is for imitating the singing or imitating the physical mannerism)
(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.
In line with what we analyzed. Well known renditions of songs = well known imitation versions of the songs. Essentially, this option is telling us that the ad firms will continue to use imitations (renditions) of songs in their commercials. This corresponds to our pre-thinking analysis. Correct choice!
Hope this helps.
01 Jun 2020, 02:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
saby1410
No, we cannot say that. "If option (E) were not there, would (D) be correct" is not how CR works, at least not the official questions.
A singer sued an advertising company for using an imitator for his/her famous song and won.
Now advertising companies will not use imitators (else they will get sued)
Singers charge more than imitators.
Conclusion: Advertising costs will rise.
To conclude that advertising cost will rise, we need to assume that the advertisers will use famous songs (with their original singers). What if advertisers stop using famous songs? Then they will not have to pay a lot of money to the famous singers of those songs.
Hence, (E) is our assumption.
What is an assumption?
(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 to whether advertising costs will rise.
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
Irrelevant to whether advertising costs will rise. This has impact on revenue generated through advertising but we are not discussing that at all. We are only talking about cost of advertising.
(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.
We are told that advertising firms will not use imitators in commercials now.
Answer (E)
02 Jul 2020, 05:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
IanStewart
I'm getting confused with (E). If I negate it, it's getting in line with the conclusion rather than against it. If companies will not use imitators then prices will go high?
