Advertising Executive: More than 10 million American households now ow

Question

Advertising Executive: More than 10 million American households now own digital video recorders which can fast-forward over television commercials; approximately 75% of these households fast-forward over at least one commercial per 30-minute program. Television commercials are now much less cost-effective as they are not as widely watched as they used to be.

Which of the following, if true, strengthens the claim made by the advertising executive?

Which of the following, if true, strengthens the claim made by the advertising executive?

(A) Product placement within television programs is a viable alternative to traditional television commercials

(B) The television programs preferred by consumers without digital video recorders are similar to those preferred by consumers with the devices

(C) In the past, television viewers did not switch channels, leave the room, or otherwise avoid watching some commercials

(D) The cost-effectiveness of television advertising is based less upon how many people watch a particular commercial and more upon the appropriateness of the demographic.

(E) Due to an imperfect sampling system used to measure the number of viewers, many companies find it difficult to determine the return on investment for television commercials

eschn3am · Answer

(C) In the past, television viewers did not switch channels, leave the room, or otherwise avoid watching some commercials 

The argument is that TV ads are less cost effective because some people are now avoiding watching them. This argument only makes sense if people hadn't been avoiding them all along.

sanjay_gmat · Answer

It's B in my opinion

A- irrelevant
B - compares the two types of viewers. This concluded without doubt that the number of minutes of advertisement collectively watched by the viewers is fewer than it would have been without the existence of the devices. This should be the answer
C - doesn't tell us if these television viewers are common to the 10 million households that own the devices. what if the 10 million households are the new viewers? in that case, inspite of the fact that these new viewers have the devices, the commercials are more widely watched than they were before.
D- irrelevant
E - irrelevant

gregspirited · Answer

I guess it is A. Will explain if answer is right

IrinaOK · Answer

B for me, 

 

(A) Product placement within television programs is a viable alternative to traditional television commercials

---> irrelevant, it offers a solution, it does not effect the argument.

(B) The television programs preferred by consumers without digital video recorders are similar to those preferred by consumers with the devices

---> lets say, previously 100 households watched a program (with commercials) on TV,  now  , even if 10 of them watch the program on tape and thus 7,5 of 100 households now fast forward the argument conclusion (in blue) is streightened. Word 'now' in red is important because it justifies word 'less' in the conclusion of the argument.

(C) In the past, television viewers did not switch channels, leave the room, or otherwise avoid watching some commercials

---> so what if they did? the argument is about the effect of  video recorders  on effectiveness of commercials. Thus C is irrelevant.

(D) The cost-effectiveness of television advertising is based less upon how many people watch a particular commercial and more upon the appropriateness of the demographic.

----> if true D weakens the argument

(E) Due to an imperfect sampling system used to measure the number of viewers, many companies find it difficult to determine the return on investment for television commercials

----> if true E weakens the argument

eschn3am · Answer

The argument is saying that TV commercials today are less cost effective because they are not as widely watched as they used to be. To strengthen this argument we need to demonstrate that this, in fact, the case. We are looking for the choice that says "look! people used to watch all the commercials, but now that they can fast forward through them, fewer people are watching!"

C says that in the past, before they had devices to fast forward through them, nobody switched channels, left the room or otherwise avoided watching them. Thus, everyone was watching all the commercials, now they're not, so they are less cost effective then they were.

on the flip side, if everyone had been switching channels and leaving the room, now that they can skip one using DVR doesn't matter. They've been avoiding commercials for years, nothing as really changed except how it's being done.

Answer is straight C. I'd love to get an OA ruling on this.

Beyond700 · Answer

Bang on the target. OA is 'C' 

Advertisement revenue directly comes from the viewership. 

Previously the viewers did not (or were not smart enough!!!) to avoid the channels and hence forced to watch all the commercials.. 
 by which viewership increased and hence the ad/marketing revenues. --- MORE COST-EFFECTIVE 

Now they can skip the commercials and thus commercials have no value, they doesn't serve their purpose... viewership reduces -  Less cost-effective.

BillyZ · Answer

Dear mikemcgarry , Could you help to explain why answer choice C is the correct answer? I thought we have to look for something which made the television commercials less cost-effective than they used to be? Answer choice C seem like the audience do not skip the television commercials. Are we looking for the answer choice which will strengthen the claim made by advertising executive? I am so confused about this.

sahilvijay · Answer

Conclusion is ads are less cost effective now...

Clearly C is strengthening answer.

We can see earlier before DVR....... In the past, television viewers did not switch channels......but now with DVR they can skip ads and also thats why ads are less cost effective.

which strengthens conclusion.

nightblade354 · Answer

OA updated to (C). This question should be good to go.

Mod Nightblade

mallya12 · Answer

Option C is correct, but how to eliminate option B.

AdityaHongunti · Answer

mallya12

Advertising Executive: More than 10 million American households now own digital video recorders which can fast-forward over television commercials; approximately 75% of these households fast-forward over at least one commercial per 30-minute program. Television commercials are now much less cost-effective as they are not as widely watched as they used to be.

Which of the following, if true, strengthens the claim made by the advertising executive?

Premise : more than 10 M =own recorder= the machine can FF TC's.
Premise : a great % of 10 M FF atleast 1 commercial
based in this executive's claim : TC's not as widely used as before (Note : This is the reason provided by exective for his conclusion. This reason may or may not be a fact) 
Conclusion: TC's much less cost effective 
Rephrase of Conclusion : TC's are now no more effective compared to before

NOTE : The subtle compariosn between PRESENT AND PAST is crucial here !!! We have a comapriosn in conclusion.

Think : Let's try to find scenarios where TC's are not less efffective OR are equally or more effective
1. The exective provides us data aout households with Recorders and tells us that this number is huge.. BUT what if the number of households which won a tv without such recorder increased SIGNIFICANTLY, then would the Tc's be less effective??? Becasue we can use the reverse reasoning as : if househilds without recordrs increased then the cumulative viewers of commericials may also increase right?? as long as MORE AND MORE ppl are watching it now the TC's are effective right?? 
Assumption 1 : The number of households with a TV without a recorder has not increased significantly such that the cumulative viewership increases !!

2. Even if the ppl skip 1 commericial per 30 min program !! what if the the total time spent in watching TV increases compared to past ?? so for example total programs watched before were 10 (each 30 min program) and now the programs watched are 30 (each 30 min ) then the effective commercials viewed MAY BE same.. See we do not have to prove anything, we only have to create a DOUBT 
Assumption : The total time watched by peeps with recorder has not increased significantly to offset th loss in commercialas viewed !!

3. "as they (commericals) are not as widely watched as they(commercials) used to be."
very important point. Lets directly attack the exec's reason provided. On the basis of the data for peep with recorder he draws an inference and makes it the basis for his conclusin. Now what if the commercials wer actually less viewed in the PAST TOO?? as long as we are in the scope f arguemnt we can contend that the commercials watched may be even less... the reason may be any for not watching comms . And what if in fact the comms watched are actually increasing?? We are comparing PAST and PRESENT right? what if comms watched was less from beginning ?? then how would the TC's be LESS EFECTIVE?? they might be same right? 
Assumprion 3 : Peeps actually wateched the comms beifore !!

always write the conclusion and view it withe evry answer (tip for eliminating Out of scope choices)
 Conclusion : TC's are less effective NOW (comparison)

To strengthen : just try to support the assumption !!
 
Which of the following, if true, strengthens the claim made by the advertising executive?

(A) Product placement within television programs is a viable alternative to traditional television commercials
- Productplacement - OUT OF SCOPE

(B) The television programs preferred by consumers without digital video recorders are similar to those preferred by consumers with the devices
- we are talking about PREFERENCE and not number of prhrams watched !!! even if the programs preferred are same with peeps with and ithout recorders the number of peeps with recorder who skip comms MAY STILL be significantly larger than peeps who dont skip comms. Preferemce dpes not help. Preferring something and actually doing it is very differet !!!

(D) The cost-effectiveness of television advertising is based less upon how many people watch a particular commercial and more upon the appropriateness of the demographic.
- demographic - OUT OF SCOPE

(E) Due to an imperfect sampling system used to measure the number of viewers, many companies find it difficult to determine the return on investment for television commercials
- retrn on invertment - OUT OF SCOPE

minalgambhir · Answer

CONCLUSION - TV commercials are much less cost effective now

GIVEN -

1) > 10 M households have video recorders which fast forward the commercials
2) 75% of households fast forward atleast 1 commercial per 30 minute
3) TV commercials are not widely watched as they used to be

STRENGTHNER - What new information increases the belief in the conclusion?

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Irrelevant
B) Television programs - not related to conclusion
C) CORRECT 
D) Weakens the conclusion
E) Return on investment not related to conclusion

ravi1522 · Answer

People are skipping ad  as given in passage due to which author conclude that it is less effective than it was used to be .So option C says  how earlier people  used to see AD which is not case in recent times,Hence this strenghten the conclusion .

Advertising Executive: More than 10 million American households now ow

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Advertising Executive: More than 10 million American households now ow

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards