It is currently 22 Oct 2017, 23:38

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A major network news organization experienced a drop in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2013, 21:28
DelSingh wrote:
If you were stuck between A vs D, here's my reasoning:

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

You have to ask yourself: If they lost viewership before, why in the world would they put out a controversial report again. Even the if the report was put out with intent, you have to consider the question stem - it asks "which MOST strongly supports the network's position" answer choice A beats D.

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week. (correct)

This is much stronger than D because it shows that there was another reason as to why viewership dropped. There was an another occurrence.

Do realize though, if A wasn't an option D would be a good choice.

Actually, (D) shouldn't be considered at all. Let me discuss why.

Argument:
A network aired a controversial report.
It experienced a drop in viewership in the following week.
The network maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

We need to strengthen that the report had nothing to do with loss of viewers.

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

So we know now that they have aired controversial reports before and got complaints. First of all, (D) doesn't tell us that there was no loss of viewers when they aired controversial reports in the past. If there was loss of viewers in the past too, then the network's claim is not strengthened - if anything, it is weakened a little. Even if there was no loss of viewers in the past, the network's claim still doesn't get strengthened much because perhaps this time, the report was way beyond the tolerance level of people - we don't know. Remember, past doesn't predict the future accurately and the future doesn't need to mirror the past. Hence, more often than not, past events will not provide much support to the future events. But we only have the past as reference to what will happen in the future so sometimes we base our hypothesis on the past.

On the other hand, option (A) gives an alternative reason for the drop - some outside factor which is responsible for the viewership drop of many channels. This strengthens the network's position that the report was not responsible for the drop.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 11

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2013, 01:10
1
KUDOS
My explanation to the causality is that:

Suppose we have the causal reasoning i.e. - X causes Y.

The option D is wrong because it only talks about X and not Y at all.

Any answer choice that talks only about X or Y and the premises are linked, then that answer choice cannot be the answer choice. It cannot affect the argument at all.
_________________

'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 11

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Real Estate
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2013, 05:10
I have another view regarding choice B:

If those who registered complaints are regular viewers, loss in viewers might not be due to negative actions COZ regular viewers are those who won't easily quit viewing after some complaints.

Why am I wrong?

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2014
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 4

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2014, 08:01
1
KUDOS
This question is based on CAUSE and EFFECT relationship.

Here CAUSE-> Controversial Program and EFFECT-> Decrease in viewership.

In Answer option A, are we not trying to define a alternate cause, which is the reason for the effect(Decrease in viewership).

I mean we are providing an alternate/different cause for the effect, which we are not suppose to do for the strengthen questions.(We should eliminate any alternate causes for the stated effect for Strengthen Questions).

Could someone please explain on this line?

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 301

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 23

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2014, 10:20
How can we tell that in A, the other networks did NOT air such controversial material? Is that not inferred? Meaning, if it was newsworthy information, wouldn't every network cover it?

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 23

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2014, 21:21
russ9 wrote:
How can we tell that in A, the other networks did NOT air such controversial material? Is that not inferred? Meaning, if it was newsworthy information, wouldn't every network cover it?

It is not given that anyone other than this network aired a controversial report. Every network has its own team of reporters and hence its own report on the state of affairs. The report of this network was controversial and disliked - it doesn't mean everyone aired the same report.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Current Student
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 32

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 39

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2014, 05:27
Do we have a causal pattern here.

Premises seem to suggest that because some negative reports were aired(cause) -----> this lead to ------> decrease in viewership(effect)
However, Conclusion explicitly rules out the possibility that the decrease in viewership was caused by controversial report.

To strengthen the conclusion, I would assume that the scenario was a co-incidence.
And the only option that meets this assumption is Option A.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 39

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [1], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2014, 20:26
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
honey86 wrote:
Do we have a causal pattern here.

Premises seem to suggest that because some negative reports were aired(cause) -----> this lead to ------> decrease in viewership(effect)
However, Conclusion explicitly rules out the possibility that the decrease in viewership was caused by controversial report.

To strengthen the conclusion, I would assume that the scenario was a co-incidence.
And the only option that meets this assumption is Option A.

Yes, your approach seems to be fine.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [1], given: 232

Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 52

Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.54
WE: Asset Management (Venture Capital)
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2014, 21:45
This is a typical strengthen question.
The argument says X does NOT lead to Y.
So one option to strengthen it is to say NOT X lead to Y ---> OA does so

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 52

Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 33

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2014, 03:40
betterscore wrote:
A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network
also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position?

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.

(B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs.

(C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports.

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

(E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy.

We need to strengthen the argument that the decrease in the viewership is not due to the negative reactions which are related to controversial report.

Option can provide an alternate cause or historical data supporting this fact.

Option C is against the argument.
Option D gives some historical data but does not provide enough data to draw a conclusion
Option E - I felt it is irrelevant
Option B - Viewers who registered the complaint are regular viewers -> states that the viewers complained but there is nothing stated about viewership.
Option A states that other news networks also faced reduction in viewership - I felt this is a shell game answer. Other channels had a drop in viewership we do not know the cause of that. May be they also telecasted a controversial report... and hence there is drop in viewership

I felt there was no clear answer to pick. I am struck between A & B.

Can someone help???

Thanks,

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 33

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2014, 03:40
betterscore wrote:
A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network
also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position?

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.

(B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs.

(C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports.

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

(E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy.

We need to strengthen the argument that the decrease in the viewership is not due to the negative reactions which are related to controversial report.

Option can provide an alternate cause or historical data supporting this fact.

Option C is against the argument.
Option D gives some historical data but does not provide enough data to draw a conclusion
Option E - I felt it is irrelevant
Option B - Viewers who registered the complaint are regular viewers -> states that the viewers complained but there is nothing stated about viewership.
Option A states that other news networks also faced reduction in viewership - I felt this is a shell game answer. Other channels had a drop in viewership we do not know the cause of that. May be they also telecasted a controversial report... and hence there is drop in viewership

I felt there was no clear answer to pick. I am struck between A & B.

Can someone help???

Thanks,

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2014, 20:30
gayam wrote:
betterscore wrote:
A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network
also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position?

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.

(B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs.

(C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports.

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

(E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy.

We need to strengthen the argument that the decrease in the viewership is not due to the negative reactions which are related to controversial report.

Option can provide an alternate cause or historical data supporting this fact.

Option C is against the argument.
Option D gives some historical data but does not provide enough data to draw a conclusion
Option E - I felt it is irrelevant
Option B - Viewers who registered the complaint are regular viewers -> states that the viewers complained but there is nothing stated about viewership.
Option A states that other news networks also faced reduction in viewership - I felt this is a shell game answer. Other channels had a drop in viewership we do not know the cause of that. May be they also telecasted a controversial report... and hence there is drop in viewership

I felt there was no clear answer to pick. I am struck between A & B.

Can someone help???

Thanks,

Option (B) doesn't support the network's position at all. The option has no effect on the network's position. The network says that the report had nothing to do with the drop. We know that the network received many complaints. Option (B) tells us that regular viewers were the ones who complained. But did they stop viewing the channel, we don't know. Complaining and dropping out are two different activities and this option doesn't tell us whether they were linked in this case. But if regular viewers do drop out, it will affect the viewership of the channel. So the information given in (B) could be viewed to have a slight negative effect on the network's position. Another way of analyzing this could be that regular viewers will probably not drop out just because of one report. But then, it is possible that if the report was controversial, only regular viewers would complaint - the others would just not watch the channel again. In any case, we get almost no support for the network's position from this option.

Option (A) shows you that some outside factor is at play since many networks experienced a drop. Hence it strengthens the network's position that the report was not responsible. Note that we have to strengthen the position, not establish it beyond doubt.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Intern
Joined: 29 Aug 2013
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2014, 06:15
Can someone please help me with the reasoning? I just highly doubt the OA answer and explanation and cannot come up why they think this answer is the best. Hopefully you can!

My line of reasoning was: the bad report (A) leads to (B1) a drop in viewership and to (B2) complaints
The conclusion says that the drop in viewership (B1) has nothing to do with the complaints (B2).

So should we not look for something that makes B1 and B2 "unequal" (something that says that B1 has nothing to do with B2)!??

For A, I concluded that this is out of scope. Why are we interested what happened to other networks?? I feel this is completely out of range!

Any help is much appreciated!

PS: On a side note, with the A (bad report) does not lead to B (loss of viewers) framework. How can we come up with that?? First, where do we account for the complaints? And second, according to the statement, A (bad report) DOES lead to B (loss of viewers). ??

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2014, 22:45
mott wrote:
Can someone please help me with the reasoning? I just highly doubt the OA answer and explanation and cannot come up why they think this answer is the best. Hopefully you can!

My line of reasoning was: the bad report (A) leads to (B1) a drop in viewership and to (B2) complaints
The conclusion says that the drop in viewership (B1) has nothing to do with the complaints (B2).

So should we not look for something that makes B1 and B2 "unequal" (something that says that B1 has nothing to do with B2)!??

For A, I concluded that this is out of scope. Why are we interested what happened to other networks?? I feel this is completely out of range!

Any help is much appreciated!

PS: On a side note, with the A (bad report) does not lead to B (loss of viewers) framework. How can we come up with that?? First, where do we account for the complaints? And second, according to the statement, A (bad report) DOES lead to B (loss of viewers). ??

This is an Official Guide question so it is quite pointless to doubt the correctness of the answer. What we should focus on instead is why answer (A) is correct, the logic behind it and how we can use similar logic in other questions.

Complaints don't really have much to do with the question. Negative reaction to the report means people's dislike of the report. It isn't only the complaints received. So the conclusion is saying that the report is not responsible for the loss of viewers.

Also, I agree that usually, when we try to strengthen something by taking an example from 'out of scope situations', it is not correct. For example, if we are wondering whether a particular plan will succeed in country A, saying that another country has implemented it, doesn't strengthen the probability of the plan succeeding in country A. But a lot depends on the given argument. Note here that we are saying that an internal factor (the report) was not responsible for drop in viewership. So if we find that there was an external factor affecting all networks, then it does strengthen our argument that the report was not the culprit. Also, you have to choose the best answer and (A) is certainly the best of the given lot.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 593

Kudos [?]: 463 [0], given: 200

Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2015, 03:10
I was stuck between A and B, but at the end have selected choice A. Although it's a Strengthen question, we have 2 strategies here: 1. We can find an answer which strengthens a conclusion OR we can find an answer that weakens the CAUSE and EFFECT relationship (Drop in viewership <-- controversial report + complaints).

1)Drop in the vieweship because of --> controversial report with the following very large number of complaints regarding it
2)Conclusion: The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

I've found it easier to solve this question with the 1st strategy - Weaken the cause and effect relationship: according to the CR Bible strategies in such kind of relationships in the weaken questions, a solution could be to state an alternative cause fo the stated situation. Because when we see such a relationship on the GMAT, it says that the stated cause is THE ONLY possible one to cause the effect.

--> Choice A gives us an alternative cause for the drop in viewership: other network has also faced drops ... IN THE SAME WEEK.

I hope it helps to solve this question. Experts please response if you don't think it's a correct strategy.
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Kudos [?]: 463 [0], given: 200

Senior Manager
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 142

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2015, 19:25
betterscore wrote:
A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network
also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the network's position?

(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.

(B) The viewers who registered complaints with the network were regular viewers of the news organization's programs.

(C) Major network news organizations publicly attribute drops in viewership to their own reports only when they receive complaints about those reports.

(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

(E) Most network news viewers rely on network news broadcasts as their primary source of information regarding the economy.

This is causal:
airing of a controversial report ----> Drop in viewership
We need to weaken this relation. This can be done by doing either of the below:
i. cause ----> [No effect] or
ii. [No Cause] -----> Effect

Now, I saw a correlation between A and D. Below is the same:
(A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.

This 'tries to' show (ii) above. Effect exists and Cause doesn't. (I think this is the reason for A to be correct). BUT, how do we know that the cause doesnt exist? Option A does not tell us that these other major networks ID NOT air the controversial report.

Coming to D,
(D) This was not the first time that this network news organization has aired a controversial report on the economy that has inspired viewers to complain to the network.

This tries to show (i) above. Cause exists and Effect doesnt. BUT, how do we know that the effect did not happen? Option A does not tell us that the last time when this network aired a controversial report on the economy, the viewership did not fall.

So i think if D is wrong, A should also be wrong.

Thanks
_________________

One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 142

Senior Manager
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 142

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2015, 19:29
BrainLab wrote:

--> Choice A gives us an alternative cause for the drop in viewership: other network has also faced drops ... IN THE SAME WEEK.

But, where does A say that the other networks DID NOT air the controversial show??
_________________

One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 142

Intern
Joined: 09 Dec 2015
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2015, 14:47
arhumsid wrote:
BrainLab wrote:

--> Choice A gives us an alternative cause for the drop in viewership: other network has also faced drops ... IN THE SAME WEEK.

But, where does A say that the other networks DID NOT air the controversial show??

This...still no logical explanation of this argument. And to those who say 'each network has its own crew and thus makes its own content', nah, just can't agree that this is a reasonable explanation for solving this problem. What if there was some 'weird stuff' going on in that country's economy so several networks reported 'controversial' reports? The passage does not explicitly tell us that this isn't true, so we have to consider this option. Keep in mind, it doesn't have to be the same identical report. It's obviously a very debatable question with no clear yes/no answer...

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2015, 01:35
Premise: Drop in viewership – after controversial report – receive large number complaint
Conclusion: Negative reactions not relevant to drop in viewership
Choice B and E are out of scope, Choice C weakens the argument.
Choice D, Not mention whether the organization experienced drop in viewership when it aired controversial report or not. If yes, it strengthens the conclusion, but no, it weakens the argument.
Choice A is correct, reducing viewers is a common trend, so controversial report is not the reason leading to decrease viewers.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2015
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 56

Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 630 Q42 V34
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2016, 10:11
Here the key is to understand that " reports " are network specific. if one network has aired a report there are chances that other one may have aired that same report( considering coincidence) BUT if I say other major network organisations also aired that same report then it goes beyond the coincidence. It is just not possible.
option A) The other major network news organizations reported similar reductions in viewership during the same week.
we can surely say reports were not the cause.
Hope this line of thinking is correct.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 56

Re: A major network news organization experienced a drop in   [#permalink] 25 May 2016, 10:11

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 51 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by