GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 06 Jul 2020, 16:42

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3077
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2020, 23:13
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.
_________________
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10634
Location: Pune, India
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2020, 01:54
saby1410 wrote:
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


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)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jan 2019
Posts: 136
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2020, 04:40
IanStewart wrote:
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?


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?
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for   [#permalink] 02 Jul 2020, 04:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 23 posts ] 

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne