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

 It is currently 03 Jul 2020, 02:49

### 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

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 316
Location: US
A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Sep 2019, 19:52
9
1
53
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:41) correct 36% (01:53) wrong based on 2688 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 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.

Originally posted by mahesh004 on 19 Nov 2005, 09:14.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 19 Sep 2019, 19:52, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 9
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2005, 23:14
8
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 singersâ€™ 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.

##### General Discussion
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2269
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 08:36
2
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?
_________________
GMAT Tutor in Montreal

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 118
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2010, 03:02
8
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
Intern
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 15
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2012, 02:05
1
PUNEETSCHDV wrote:
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.

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
Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 648
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2014, 21:34
1
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!
SVP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1931
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2016, 00:26
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...
_________________
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 98
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2019, 02:46
Hi can anyone explain why option C is a wrong choice? i was confused between C &E , and ended up choosing C
Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2017
Posts: 32
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2019, 17:00
1
mahesh004 wrote:
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. Irrelevant to cost increase

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

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.what if the original versions are also costlier than imitated version

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.then the cost will increase. Doesnt help

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.if the ad companies refrain from using any rendition at all and substitute with cheaper and alternative ways, then cost will increase. Yes

Posted from my mobile device
ESMT Berlin School Moderator
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 201
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 01:18
4
1
abhishek31 wrote:
Hi can anyone explain why option C is a wrong choice? i was confused between C &E , and ended up choosing C

Conclusion:
since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators -----------> Advertising costs will rise

Pre-Think:
The Ad-firm MUST need to use famous singers' services.
There is NO other way by which the Ad-firm can reduce the cost while NOT using the famous singers' service.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
Let's negate OptionC -
!C = The original versions of some well-known songs are NOT unavailable for use in commercials, i.e.,
The original versions of some well-known songs are available for use in commercials.

The availability of some well-known songs for use in commercials does NOT necessarily imply that the Ad-firm will be able to utilize this option.
It is probable that even after being available, the original versions could cost SIGNIFICANTLY higher than that of the famous singers' service.
Thus, NOT necessarily breaking the conclusion.

Flaw in Reasoning:
The availability of a utility is confused with the ACTUAL use of that utility. scope shift - one of the perfect TRAPS set by GMAT.
Ex. The solar cells are available and CAN mitigate the unceasing demand for electricity.
However, Just because solar cells are available and can ease the situation, it does NOT necessarily mean that nations are going to utilize this option.
There might be certain setbacks which are hindering in the utilization such as technological challenges, skill-set of the operators, rules, and protocols, cost-effectiveness, tax-norms, etc.

TakeAway:
There is ambiguity in Option-C.
This choice can sway in either direction. - The effect is NOT conclusive.
For any option to be an assumption, The negation of that answer choice MUST break the conclusion.

_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble is - you think you have time - Buddha
Intern
Joined: 03 Feb 2019
Posts: 2
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 07:38
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 5010
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 08:21

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

$$Quote: As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.$$

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

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Intern
Joined: 22 May 2018
Posts: 49
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2019, 05:01
2
Quote:
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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Quote:
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.

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

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

This matches with our prethinking. Instead of going for some other alternative, Advertisers will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3544
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2019, 11:09
2

There are some very nice explanations above from Abhishek009 and celo700, but I'll throw in my two cents, just in case it's helpful.

The question asks us on which assumption the conclusion is based. Another way to think about this is that the correct answer choice MUST be true in order for the conclusion to follow logically from the evidence in the passage.

The author's conclusion is that "advertising costs will rise." He/she reaches this conclusion by citing the following facts:

• due to a lawsuit, "advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials."
• "famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators"

Now take a look at (E):
Quote:
(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

The ONLY way that the conclusion ("advertising costs will rise") logically follows from the evidence cited in the passage is if the advertising industry actually continues to use well-known renditions of songs. If the advertising industry chooses not to use well-known renditions of songs, then there will be no increased cost to hire famous singers, and then advertising costs will not rise.

Because the information in (E) MUST be true in order for the conclusion to follow from the evidence in the passage, (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 May 2019, 07:50
abhishek31 wrote:
Hi can anyone explain why option C is a wrong choice? i was confused between C &E , and ended up choosing C

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.
Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 9
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2019, 02:19
Premises: famous singer won a lawsuit; ad firms will stop using imitators in ads;
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2014
Posts: 329
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2019, 20:42
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.
Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2017
Posts: 122
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2019, 10:07
1
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.
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.
Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2014
Posts: 147
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 580 Q41 V28
GPA: 3.8
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2020, 22:48
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.
_________________
I DON'T FEAR FAILING, I FEAR NOT TRYING

PLEASE UPVOTE IF YOU LIKE MY EXPLANATIONS
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 59
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2020, 07:39

Can we say option d is correct if E isn't there by saying Cost of lawsuits + cost of imitators= high advertising cost
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for   [#permalink] 30 May 2020, 07:39

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]