Options B and C are going against the facts mentioned in the argument itself. So, both of them are irrelevant.When options provide new information that contradicts what is given in the paragraph, can we assume that what is given must be true and determine that the options are just irrelevant?
vnigam21
******GOOD QUESTION******
Because postage rates are rising, Home Decorator magazine plans to maximize its profits by reducing by one half the number of issues it publishes each year. The quality of articles, the number of articles published per year, and the subscription price will not change. Market research shows that neither subscribers nor advertisers will be lost if the magazine's plan is instituted.
Thorough explanation of the above argument : --
*Magazines Issue is equivalent to a newsletter, publication, edition etc..
**Postage rate is amount of money charged by a governmental postal service to ship and deliver mail.
Scenario - Suppose a magazine publishes 12 issues/publications/newsletters per year, so now it will publish 6 issues/publications/newsletters per year. Reason - postage rates are rising, and Home Decorator magazine plans to maximize its profits.
What about the other things?? Will REMAIN SAME. (The quality of articles, the number of articles published per year, and the subscription price will not change. )
Alert - Don't confuse yourself with the difference between the issues and the articles. As I did when I first attempted this question.
Conclusion - Plan is good. Question - Plan is bad??
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the magazine's profits are likely to decline if the plan is instituted?
CONCLUSION -- IF PLAN IS INSTITUTED, THE PROFITS ARE LIKELY TO DECLINE. Therefore, the plan is bad.
PROFITS = REVENUE - COSTS.
i. Profits will decline if the COSTS GO UP SUBSTANTIALLY
ii. Profits will increase if the REVENUE GOES UP SIGNIFICANTLY
(A) With the new postage rates, a typical issue under the proposed plan would cost about one-third more to mail than a typical current issue would.
This option is talking about the mailing costs;
current postage rate - $3
new postage rate - $4 (as per this option details)
Issues earlier (suppose as) - 10, therefore, Mailing cost -- 10*3 = 30
Issues now (will be half) - 5 -- Mailing cost -- 5*4 = 20
Thus, the cost is getting reduced itself. Therefore, the profits will increase instead, keeping the revenue same.
Explanation by RON,
they're only going to send out half as many issues. therefore, unless the cost of postage doubles, they're actually going to spend less money on postage than they did before.
choice (a) says that postage will cost only 1/3 more - far less than double. therefore, choice (a) actually implies that the total cost of postage will go down. this is exactly the opposite of what you want.
it may help to set specific numbers to the values in question.
let's say that they currently send out 10 issues per year, and that postage currently costs $3 per issue.
this is a total cost of $30 for postage.
if they cut the number of issues in half, to 5, than the postage would have to double (to $6/issue) to amount to the same total of $30.
if the postage increase is only 1/3, then the cost of postage per issue will only rise to $4. if only five issues per year are then sent out, the total cost of postage will fall from its original value ($30) to a new value of 5 x $4 = $20.
(B) The majority of the magazine's subscribers are less concerned about a possible reduction in the quantity of the magazine's articles than about a possible loss of the current high quality of its articles.
The magazine's subscribers concerns are valid and they need to be rest assured that there will no loss of the current high quality, as it is directly mentioned in the argument that quality will not change. So, incorrect. Also, this does not proves why the plan is bad.
(C) Many of the magazine's long-time subscribers would continue their subscriptions even if the subscription price were increased.
This option statement answers the what if scenario. But the subscription price will not change as per the argument. So we are not concerned about this scenario. Its irrelevant.
Also, this option does not proves why the plan is bad.
[highlight]Options B and C are going against the facts mentioned in the argument itself. So, both of them are irrelevant.[/highlight]
(D) Most of the advertisers that purchase advertising space in the magazine will continue to spend the same amount on advertising per issue as they have in the past.
Home Decorator magazine’s profits would be likely to decline if, as a result of instituting the plan, revenues were to decrease substantially. Choice D indicates that the plan would produce substantially lower revenues because most advertisers will pay the magazine the same amount per issue, but there will be only half as many issues. Therefore, D is the best answer
Earlier Scenario -
No. of Issues per year - 12
postage rates per issue - $3
no. of advertising space purchased by advertisers per issue - 10
amount on advertising per issue earlier - 1 * 3 * 10 = $30
amount on advertising earlier - $ (12 * 30) - $360
Current Scenario -
No. of Issues per year - 6
postage rates per issue - $8
no. of advertising space purchased by advertisers per issue - 10 * 2 = 20 (as number of articles will still be the same, so it will double, as no. of issues reduced by half)
amount on advertising per issue now - $30 (As per this option, its same as earlier)
But calculation as per current scenario - 1*8*20 = $160 ,
amount on advertising now - $(6 * 160) - $960 (the amount which the advertisers needs to pay now, but they are paying the same amount as earlier.)
Thus this will result in a loss for magazine's profits. Thus, plan is bad and this is the correct option.
(E) Production costs for the magazine are expected to remain stable.
Profit = (Sales Revenue - Production Costs), just knowing the production costs we cannot comment on the profits. We need to know about the sales revenue as well to comment on the profit. We don't have enough information on the same. Incorrect.