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 Your Progress
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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 05 Jan 2019, 02:52
3
29
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
75% (hard)
Question Stats:
55% (01:28) correct 45% (01:44) wrong based on 1416 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers.
(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.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Dec 2006, 20:55
5
2
C
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? (A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. does not necessarily mean they morally disapproved. Could be because they did not have the right audience with the new publication(B) Some advertisers switched from family newspapers to advertise in the changed publication. irrelevant. we are talking about advertisers who were advertising in the current publication earlier (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 sales will drop now since they withdrew the advertisements, they must have done so on moral grounds (D) People who generally read family newspapers are not likely to buy newspapers that concentrate on sex and violence. again shows that advertisers might have witrhdrawn to avoid loss. weakens the argument (E) It was expected that the changed publication would appeal principally to those in a different income group. again could be related to profits rather than moral values.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Dec 2006, 11:55
2
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?
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Dec 2006, 17:27
1
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
_________________
------------------------------------------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams"
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Sep 2007, 03:52
1
jyotsnasarabu wrote:
10. 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? (A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. (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.
Yup the answer is C.
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.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Jul 2011, 10:49
(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
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Jul 2011, 11:23
4
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? (A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. (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.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jun 2012, 03:16
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.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jun 2012, 14:04
3
1
One possible objection to this argument is that the advertisers had some financial incentive to pull their ads from publication after it changed to sex and violence. Because we are looking to strengthen the argument, we would have to defuse this potential objection. Only, (C) shows that the advertisers were not motivated by money. By pulling out they had money to lose, compared to had they not retracted their advertisements. Therefore the answer is (C).
_________________
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Apr 2015, 11:11
1
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?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers.
(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
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Apr 2015, 22:20
1
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?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. >> 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.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Apr 2015, 04:26
1
Agree with the Answer C.
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?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers.
(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.
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jun 2015, 11:02
1
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...
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Dec 2017, 02:48
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?
(A) The advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers. (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.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long +1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Re: Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Jan 2019, 02:53
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
close
55% (01:28) correct 
even though there was higher profit they opted to move out. Makes it better than A.
