Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn

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) 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

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

Advertiser's conclusion : Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising
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.

nightblade354

I didnt't understand the argument. Can you help me to comprehend what the Advertiser and the Consumer is saying?

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.

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.

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 :

1. Advertiser
2. Publisher
3. Consumer

Advertiser to Consumer:

1. If you buy a magazine or a newspaper without advertisement, it will cost you more.
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.
­

I can totally buy that 'A' would be the answer. But I have one concern, consumer is so confident that we are paying for that extra money spend by companies on marketing campaign by increasing the price of product.
Then how can answer contains 'if true' phrase, if it didn't have that phrase then I would have choosen this answer.


KarishmaB GMATNinja Pls help.

­
Advertiser: Advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy much lower.
Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising.

Consumer: Advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products and hence we pay for advertising.
Unsaid conclusion: Consumers do not benefit economically from advertising.

How does the consumer counter the advertiser's argument? By raising a point which counters the advertiser's conclusion.

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

This is correct.

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

The consumer does not question the truth of "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."
This is the factual statement on which the advertiser's conclusion is based. The consumer does not question it. He raises a new relevant point.

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

Again, the consumer does not offer another interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement. He offers a new statement.

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

No bias in point of view discussed.

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

The entire discussion is about the economic effects and both focus on that. Advertiser says that revenue from advertising keeps the cost low for consumers. The consumer says that he is the one paying for advertising because the advertiser passes on that cost to him by increasing product price. Hence only economic impact of advertising is being discussed. The consumer does not argue that the advertiser is focusing only on economic affects.

Answer (A)

Discussion on Method Questions: https://youtu.be/uA5aXAZI1Z8

­It is simply telling you that we should assume the data given by the consumer to be true. It is no different from the way many other CR question stems are structured:
e.g. in inference questions:
If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?
The claims above, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
etc.

Do we say that of course premises are true then why to say that they are? No. The question stem is just ensuring that you understand that you have to take the given premises to be true and conclude based on that.

­
Let's analyse each option, one by one.

• (A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion:
  
  • This option suggests that the consumer is introducing a new point or fact that challenges the advertiser's conclusion. If the consumer's claim is correct, it would make the advertiser's conclusion less believable.

• (B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based:
  
  • This option suggests that the consumer is directly attacking the factual basis of the advertiser's argument. The consumer is essentially saying, "Is that fact even true?"

Here, Consumer is not challenging the fact (that he is getting newspaper in lesser price) but he/she 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:
  
  • This option suggests that the consumer is reinterpreting what the advertiser said initially and demonstrating that there is an inherent contradiction in the advertiser's argument if the consumer's interpretation is correct.

• (D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased:
  
  • This option suggests that the consumer is arguing that the advertiser's argument is not objective and is influenced by a particular bias. This doesn't directly counter the facts but rather questions the integrity of the advertiser's viewpoint.

• (E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic:
  
  • This option suggests that the consumer is criticizing the advertiser for focusing only on the economic aspects of advertising, implying that there are other important aspects that the advertiser is ignoring.

­IMO A is correct.­

­(A) By alleging something that, if true, would weaken the plausibility of the advertiser’s conclusion
The consumer argues that while advertisements help lower the price of newspapers and magazines, the cost of advertising is ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices for products. This allegation, if true, undermines the advertiser’s claim that consumers economically benefit from advertising, by suggesting that any savings on publications are offset by higher prices on advertised products.


(B) By questioning the truth of the purportedly factual statement on which the advertiser’s conclusion is based
This option suggests that the consumer is directly challenging the factual accuracy of the advertiser’s statement. However, the consumer does not question the fact that advertising revenue allows for lower prices of newspapers and magazines. Instead, the consumer accepts this fact but introduces a new consideration (that consumers pay higher prices for advertised products), which weakens the advertiser's conclusion.


(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it
This option suggests that the consumer interprets the advertiser’s statement in a way that reveals a contradiction. However, the consumer doesn’t reinterpret the advertiser’s statement or find a contradiction within it. Instead, the consumer introduces an additional factor (the higher prices of advertised products) that challenges the overall benefit claimed by the advertiser.


(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased
This option suggests that the consumer is accusing the advertiser of bias. However, the consumer doesn't accuse the advertiser of being biased. Instead, the consumer presents a counterargument based on the economic consequences of advertising, not on the motives or biases of the advertiser.


(E) By arguing that the advertiser too narrowly restricts the discussion to the effects of advertising that are economic
This option suggests that the consumer is broadening the discussion to include non-economic effects of advertising. However, the consumer's counterargument is still focused on economic effects—specifically, the higher prices that consumers pay for products due to advertising costs. The discussion remains within the realm of economics, so this option does not correctly describe the consumer's response.

KarishmaB GMATNinja

(D) By pointing out that the advertiser’s point of view is biased
Can you please help me understand why advertiser view is not biased if advertiser is focusing only on consumer benefits and no disadvantage? what type of statement would be biased view? can you give example?

(C) By offering an interpretation of the advertiser’s opening statement that, if accurate, shows that there is an implicit contradiction in it
Consumer point of view - Ads revenue doesnt allow low price per copy, it is higher product prices charged to consumer by advertiser that allows for low prices per copy
Can we say that consumer is offering another interpretation of "Ads revenue allows low price per copy"?