GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 08:36

### 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: 415
Location: US
A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 19 Sep 2019, 20:52
7
1
36
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:41) correct 36% (01:51) wrong based on 1750 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, 10:14.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 19 Sep 2019, 20:52, 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

20 Nov 2005, 00:14
6
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: 1806
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 09:36
1
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 Toronto

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: 133
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2010, 04:02
6
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
_________________
Please give me kudos, if you like the above post.
Thanks.
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, 03:05
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: 660
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, 22:34
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!
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1256
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2016, 01:26
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...
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 101
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2019, 03:46
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: 25
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2019, 18:00
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
Manager
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 179
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 02:18
3
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
Giving Kudos is the best way to encourage and appreciate people.
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, 08:38
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4775
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 09:21

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, 06:01
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 tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2019, 12:09
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 tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

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: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 May 2019, 08:50
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: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 11
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2019, 03:19
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: 352
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, 21:42
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.
Re: A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for   [#permalink] 16 Jul 2019, 21:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by