Last visit was: 14 Jul 2024, 21:39 It is currently 14 Jul 2024, 21:39
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.

# Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 250
Own Kudos [?]: 727 [82]
Given Kudos: 0
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 133
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [10]
Given Kudos: 0
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 296
Own Kudos [?]: 4591 [7]
Given Kudos: 2
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94342
Own Kudos [?]: 640856 [2]
Given Kudos: 85011
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
jyotsnasarabu wrote:
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.

(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.

(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.

Source: LSAT

Official Explanation

The suppressed premise in this argument is that by emphasizing moral considerations and withdrawing their advertisements the advertisers hurt themselves financially, or at least did not gain by it. To strengthen the argument, we need to show that this assumption is true. Choice (C) implies that this is the case by stating that the advertisers expected to lose sales if they withdrew their advertisements. Hence the answer is (C).
General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [5]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: New York
5
Kudos
C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

Since the advertisers withdrew even when they knew their product sales would increase if they stayed, they surely had moral reasons, supporting the argument. No?
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 36
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
2
Kudos
sujayb wrote:
C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

Since the advertisers withdrew even when they knew their product sales would increase if they stayed, they surely had moral reasons, supporting the argument. No?

I picked A. But your explanation proves C provides a better reason than A.
C is a better choice
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 283
Own Kudos [?]: 498 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
1
Kudos
jyotsnasarabu wrote:
10. Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of peopleâ€™s tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.

First we will have to find the Assumption. The assumption here is that Advertisers switched their ads. only on the basis of morality though it would impact their product sales.

Only option C seconds that..
Manager
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 134
Own Kudos [?]: 1371 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. INCORRECT this statement does not give us any information about the reason for switching (neither financial nor moral)
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication. INCORRECT unrelated - we are not concerned about other advertisers
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew. CORRECT if advertisers were not concerned financially then they must be morally motivated
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence. - INCORRECT readers are irrelevant to the argument
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group. INCORRECT income groups is irrelevant information
Retired Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1108
Own Kudos [?]: 4752 [5]
Given Kudos: 376
4
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
vineetgupta wrote:
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.

Please give reasons for ur choice....

A is caused only by B and C.
Conclusion: A was caused by B.
Assumption or strength: We know that C was not present OR C definitely didn't cause A this time.

Likewise:
Advertisers are motivated by MORAL and MONEY.
Conclusion: Advertisers withdrew from publication because they were morally motivated.

Attack: Why it can't be MONEY?
Answer to attack: Because, they would have most certainly earned more money had they chosen to advertise in the new publication. Yet, they didn't choose to advertise in new publication. Thus, the only remaining factor is moral that must have dictated their decision.

Ans: "C"
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 133
Own Kudos [?]: 121 [2]
Given Kudos: 6
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Straight C. If the advertisers are switching despite knowing that they will lose though then it means that moral consideration plays a factor in the decision making of some advertisers.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 402
Own Kudos [?]: 1847 [6]
Given Kudos: 370
GPA: 3.5
1
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bumping for review and further discussion*.

Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2014
Posts: 68
Own Kudos [?]: 146 [1]
Given Kudos: 89
Concentration: Marketing, Healthcare
1
Kudos
souvik101990 wrote:
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.

(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.

(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.

Close call between A and C

For A, advertisers could have switched for better profits at other family newspapers

For C, they withdrew even though there was an expected profit

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 338
Own Kudos [?]: 4631 [1]
Given Kudos: 606
Concentration: Technology, Other
1
Kudos
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants.
There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations.
A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership.

Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

>> There can be other reasons to move out such as profit was less, new audiences were not receptive, etc.
(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
>> Not relevant.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.
>> Now that's a big sacrifice even though there was higher profit they opted to move out. Makes it better than A.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.
>>Opposite of what v r looking for.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.
>> Not relevant.
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2013
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 127 [1]
Given Kudos: 113
1
Kudos

The publishers withdrew at the cost of their own sales- even when they expected to increase the sales. Clearly this idea point that publishers do not mind sales, but mind about publishing salacious materials.

Nice wording. I fell for the wording in the option C.

souvik101990 wrote:
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.

(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.

(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2015
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]
Given Kudos: 10
1
Kudos
IMO the key confusing phrase was "moral as well as financial considerations". Here the financial considerations could be anything: profit or loss. Morality, however, is most likely to be interpreted as virtuous. It's difficult from the phrase above to conclude that financial loss would be overlooked for a higher moral benefit. This makes "C" a difficult choice, if not straight choice, and some eliminations need to be employed.

Had the phrase been" moral considerations, regardless of financial positions", "C" would have been the direct choice...
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2093
Own Kudos [?]: 8977 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
jyotsnasarabu wrote:
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.
(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.
(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.
(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.

Source: LSAT

"there is evidence ... some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations." They're trying to be nice, and tip you off to the possible alternative explanation for why the advertisers would switch publications. Answer choice (C) suggests that the advertisers ignored their financial considerations, thus supporting the explanation that the advertisers switched for moral considerations.

Let's look at the incorrect answer choices:

(A) doesn't explain why! Maybe their financial considerations would prompt them to advertise in a family newspaper. We just don't know why they would want to stay with a family newspaper.
(B) fails to explain why just like answer choice (A).
(D) undermines the argument by providing a financial consideration to be aware of.
(E) undermines the argument by providing a financial consideration to be aware of.
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 340
Own Kudos [?]: 201 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V28
GPA: 3.56
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
sujayb wrote:
C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

Since the advertisers withdrew even when they knew their product sales would increase if they stayed, they surely had moral reasons, supporting the argument. No?

Most sensible explanation. Made me learn why 'A' is wrong and 'C' is correct. Taught to read the options to its correct interpretation.
Thanks and Kudos.
Intern
Joined: 29 Nov 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
jyotsnasarabu wrote:
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. A particular publication decided to change its image from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence, thus appealing to a different readership. Some advertisers withdrew their advertisements from the publication, and this must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication.

(C) The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew.

(D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence.

(E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group.

Source: LSAT

Official Explanation

The suppressed premise in this argument is that by emphasizing moral considerations and withdrawing their advertisements the advertisers hurt themselves financially, or at least did not gain by it. To strengthen the argument, we need to show that this assumption is true. Choice (C) implies that this is the case by stating that the advertisers expected to lose sales if they withdrew their advertisements. Hence the answer is (C).

I was stuck between C & E tho. Agreed with you that C makes the assumption stronger by stating that they are willing to sacrifice lose in sales just because it's not morally accepted by the advertisers. But also remember that they are also "motivated by [moral] as well as financial considerations". The last sentence mentions that they care morally. How about the "financial considerations"? C would literally says that they give zero care about financial, which omit the "financial considerations" part!
PM Intern
Joined: 01 May 2023
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 17 [0]
Given Kudos: 351
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1