Bands that are signed to recording contracts with major record labels

Let me know if this make sense?

Read the stimulus

Bands that are signed to recording contracts with major record labels generate higher average record sales than do bands who sign contracts with independent labels. The characteristics of the record label, such as marketing expertise and promotional budgets, must be a more important causative factor in record sales than are characteristics of the band, such as musical talent and ambition.

What is the flaw in the conclusion?

The argument without considering the primary factors (Seemingly) related to the Bands concludes based on the (seemingly) secondary characteristics, there could be other reasons for records sales than the marketing expertise and promotional budgets.

What we have to do now?

We have to weaken the argument with valid logic, we have to weaken that marketing expertise and promotional budgets are not the only reason for high sales record and there might be some other issues and also that the musical talent and ambition is important which decides the sales growth.

Now look at the each answer choice.

A. A band’s musical talent is a more important factor in selling records than its ambition.

This choice do nothing with the conclusion neither strengthen nor weaken. Eliminate

B. Some independent record labels have as much marketing expertise as do major labels.

This option actually strengthen the argument up to to some extent, This options states that it is true that majority of the independent labels fails because of the low budget and they do not have enough promotional activities. Eliminate

C. Consumers state that musical talent is their top criterion in determining which records to buy.

This seems good one, it says the primary stake holders who makes the sales a record, the customers or consumers, said that musical talent is their top criterion while buying the music labels. It clears that marketing expertise and promotional budgets are not the deciding factors for record sale rather musical talent. Keep this

D. Some bands signed to contracts with independent labels produce top-selling records.

Again it didn't capture the conclusion of the argument, it says some of the (That "some" might be 2% of the total independent labels or might be 0.2%) independent so what to say about the majority? It capture a very tiny fraction of the argument.

E. Major record labels base their decisions to sign bands on characteristics of the band, including musical talent and ambition.

This option provides the information which is already available in the passage but its direction is unknown. It says major bands base their decisions to sign on characteristics of the band, Including musical talent and ambition. The word including shows that musical talent and ambition are just a fractional part of their criteria to sign a band, We don't know whether these two characteristics [musical talent and ambition] weigh 2% of their criteria or 98%. Let see an example

Here is a criteria with weights on which the major record labels signed a band:

Example 1

1. Popularity of the band = 40%
2. Reference or recommendation = 30%
3. Number of band members = 20%
4. Musical talent = 5%
5. Ambition = 5%

Example 2

1. Popularity 10%
2. Number of band members 5%
3. Reference or recommendation 5%
4. Musical talent 60%
5. Ambition 20%

Answer option E holds true for both of the examples but here the example number 1 didn't weaken the argument while example 2 did. Clearly the context is not clear so C is better than E.

Answer: C