Last visit was: 14 Jul 2024, 09:06 It is currently 14 Jul 2024, 09:06
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 86
Own Kudos [?]: 372 [156]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: uk
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 296
Own Kudos [?]: 4591 [23]
Given Kudos: 2
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 586
Own Kudos [?]: 1565 [6]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 334 [3]
Given Kudos: 5
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
ChrisLele wrote:
As for (C), I don't see any implicit contradiction in the advertiser's claim. An implicit contradiction would render the argument invalid without the consumer having to pipe up in the first place. What the consumer does is points out something that, if true (low-priced newspapers end up costing consumers more because of advertising) would weaken the advertiser's argument, which is answer (A).

As for (B), what is the factual statement that is being questioned? The advertiser is making a claim, and the advertising is challenging the validity of that claim.

Can you please explain why 'E' is wrong. OA is 'A'.
But for me 'E' is right, as it clearly explain that Advertiser is narrowly thinking on his explanation.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4415
Own Kudos [?]: 31279 [2]
Given Kudos: 641
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
2
Kudos
(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic

Dear Jitgoel, Here is choice E for you. Can you review the choice while focusing on the underlined portion and argue if the consumer's counter follows along those lines. Take a minute to think and I am sure you will get the answer. Ask your self -
1. What does "that are economic mean"
2. Does the consumer's counter apply to the above given this context. Isn't consumer's argument about effects that are economic.
s
Intern
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Can someone explain why E is wrong ! The above explanations for E being wrong dont satisfy me !
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 490
Dear experts,
Please give a brief explanation for eliminating E

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Posts: 217
Own Kudos [?]: 266 [3]
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
dips wrote:
Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising.
Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.

Which of the following best describes how the consumer counters the advertiser’s argument?

(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion
(B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based
(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it
(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased
(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic

Question stem: Which of the following best describes how the consumer counters the advertiser’s argument?

Consumer's counter :
Consumer blames the advertising companies without any proof that they pass along advertising costs to them through the higher prices they charge for their products. So the consumers are not benefiting from advertising. This weakens Author's conclusion

(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion
- Correct. This perfectly describes what we discussed above.
(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic
- Incorrect. The consumer did not argue about how the Advertiser restricted the discussion. He alleged something which questions advertisers conclusion that Consumers don't benefit from advertising.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jan 2017
Posts: 412
Own Kudos [?]: 285 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
Location: India
Here is another way of understanding Option E.

The keyword that makes Option E incorrect is the word "too narrowly". When someone says, "too narrowly" it means you are countering an argument by actually giving one counter-example of an otherwise generalised statement.

Since Option E is not really talking about anything that is a part-whole relationship; it doesn't make sense and is incorrect.

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

Saikiran Dudyala
Byju's GMAT Verbal Expert
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 456
Own Kudos [?]: 730 [0]
Given Kudos: 294
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4

I didnt't understand the argument. Can you help me to comprehend what the Advertiser and the Consumer is saying?
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1731
Own Kudos [?]: 5905 [4]
Given Kudos: 3115
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
4
Kudos
pikolo2510,

Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising. In English: you would pay a \$1 without advertising, but you pay 50 cents because advertisers pick up part of the cost because they pay the newspaper for you to see the ad.

Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products. In English: Your argument is fine, but we pay for more than you are alleging because if we buy the product (say, a coke after they raise their prices to account for the new marketing campaign), then we are paying for the advertising and, thus, a larger portion of the 50 cents saved.
Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Posts: 195
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [0]
Given Kudos: 288
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
AjiteshArun
I was confused between A and E.
Can you please say why E is wrong ?
I interpreted from E as advertiser are thinking narrowly for the economic consideration and that's true as consumer took the broader perspective.
Can you please brief what's wrong in my interpretation ?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5301
Own Kudos [?]: 4731 [2]
Given Kudos: 657
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
1
Kudos
teaserbae wrote:
AjiteshArun
I was confused between A and E.
Can you please say why E is wrong ?
I interpreted from E as advertiser are thinking narrowly for the economic consideration and that's true as consumer took the broader perspective.
Can you please brief what's wrong in my interpretation ?
Option E is "by arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic". Here we should not look at the too narrowly in isolation. We need to include the thing that the option says the discussion is too narrowly restricted to:

... too narrowly restricts the discussion to (economic) effects

It is this part that is incorrect. So yes, the advertiser fails to consider some other things, but the consumer does not counter the advertiser by bringing in (non-economic) effects. This is what the consumer says:

But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.

Even the consumer's response sticks to economic (~related to money) factors.
VP
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Status:It's near - I can see.
Posts: 1467
Own Kudos [?]: 1636 [4]
Given Kudos: 1002
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE:Engineering (Real Estate)
4
Kudos
dips wrote:
Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising.
Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.

Which of the following best describes how the consumer counters the advertiser’s argument?

This is how I understood this :

We have three type of people :

2. Publisher
3. Consumer

2. Because of money that I give the publisher to advertise XYZ, he/she reduces the rate of magazine or newspaper you (consumer) buy.
3. Actually advertiser is saying, "I (advertiser) am paying the remaining amount from my pocket and that is the reason you (consumer) are getting the newspaper or magazine at the reduced rate.

Say, Publishing cost without the advertisement = 5 dollars (all on consumer)

Publishing cost with adds = 5 dollars (3 dollars on Consumer ------- 2 dollars on advertiser)

Therefore, Advertiser is saying, "I am paying 2 dollars for you (consumer), and therefore you are getting the newspaper or magazine economically(at lesser price than normal). Also, you are getting free advertisements to see."

Consumer counters : We are the ones who are paying the additional 2 dollars also, because you (advertiser) get back 2 dollars by raising the prices of items that are being advertised. So , you are not paying it from your pocket. Indirectly, it is consumer who is bearing all the costs.

(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion

A is correct. If the consumer's claim is true, it would weaken the advertiser's conclusion that consumers are benefiting economically.

(B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based

Not true: Consumer is not challenging the fact that he/she is getting the magazine or newspaper at lesser price. Consumer is challenging the advertiser's conclusion based on this factual statement.

(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it

Not correct : Consumer's argument is revolving around the advertiser's conclusion. There is no contradiction in the opening statement. Consumer does not counter the factual statement.

(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased

Irrelevant.

(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic

Not correct : Both are arguing the matter on economic basis. Therefore, consumer can't say that advertiser has narrowed the discussion.
­
Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2019
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 65 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Operations (Aerospace and Defense)
ChrisLele wrote:
As for (C), I don't see any implicit contradiction in the advertiser's claim. An implicit contradiction would render the argument invalid without the consumer having to pipe up in the first place. What the consumer does is points out something that, if true (low-priced newspapers end up costing consumers more because of advertising) would weaken the advertiser's argument, which is answer (A).

As for (B), what is the factual statement that is being questioned? The advertiser is making a claim, and the advertising is challenging the validity of that claim.

Hi ChrisLele I myself was able to narrow down to A, however i do have a doubt, which arises from your explanation.
Advertiser says : Because we advertise, consumers pay low for our newspapers and hence it is economically beneficial to them.
Now, the Consumer says: But actually is is not beneficial to us, since we only end up paying those costs from our pockets.
How is this not a contradicition?
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
livfcind wrote:
ChrisLele wrote:
As for (C), I don't see any implicit contradiction in the advertiser's claim. An implicit contradiction would render the argument invalid without the consumer having to pipe up in the first place. What the consumer does is points out something that, if true (low-priced newspapers end up costing consumers more because of advertising) would weaken the advertiser's argument, which is answer (A).

As for (B), what is the factual statement that is being questioned? The advertiser is making a claim, and the advertising is challenging the validity of that claim.

Hi ChrisLele I myself was able to narrow down to A, however i do have a doubt, which arises from your explanation.
Advertiser says : Because we advertise, consumers pay low for our newspapers and hence it is economically beneficial to them.
Now, the Consumer says: But actually is is not beneficial to us, since we only end up paying those costs from our pockets.
How is this not a contradicition?

Quote:
(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it

The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible.

There is no contradiction that revenue of newspapers and magazines are higher that allows publications to be lower than otherwise would be.

I hope it is clear.
Manager
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
I understood why E is wrong .
But i have a doubt in A .

A says "By alleging something that, if true"
In the argument the consumer never doubts if its true or not.
Consumer boldly claims that consumers pay for the advertisement ( "We consumers do")

This is what made me choose E over A . Though E is wrong , A doesn't sound right too .

Can anyone suggest ?
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Harshjha001 wrote:
I understood why E is wrong .
But i have a doubt in A .

A says "By alleging something that, if true"
In the argument the consumer never doubts if its true or not.
Consumer boldly claims that consumers pay for the advertisement ( "We consumers do")

This is what made me choose E over A . Though E is wrong , A doesn't sound right too .

Can anyone suggest ?

(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion

Allege what?
Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.
If above statement is true that it weakens the advertiser’s conclusion.
Actually consumer says, it doesn't benefit consumers economically.

Exactly that's what is happening

E is wrong because the scope is on economic. We don't care about other effects based on the information given in the argument.
In short, advertisers say consumers benefit economically. Consumer says , no we don't benefit economically. We need to pay high price for these products.
E says : that the argument is only focus on economic point. It should also consider other points.
But that is not needed for this argument as scope is based on economic factor. Hence E is absolutely wrong.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17498
Own Kudos [?]: 868 [0]
Given Kudos: 0