Cable-television spokesperson: Subscriptions to cable television are a

What is the point that the spokesperson is trying to make?
That "Subscriptions to cable television are a bargain in comparison to “free” television"

That you have to pay a small subscription fee for cable television but it is not much compared to the financial burden of costly advertising of products on free advertising (which leads to products becoming expensive and hence the consumer paying extra for them)

Now one point that comes to mind is that cable television has expensive advertising too so this financial burden is a part of it too. The subscription fee is an add on burden! - If it were true that cable TV doesn't have (or it's much less) such advertising then the argument could have had merit.
Option (D) raises this point - that cable TV has as much such advertising. Hence it damages the position of the spokesperson.
_________________

Hi,

Here's the approach:

Premise: Advertisements support 'free' television. Consumers pay for advertisements.

Conclusion: Cable televisions are bargains as compared to 'free' television.

Assumption: The cable televisions are supposed to be advertisement free for them to be attractive to consumers.

Option D directly negates this assumption and hence, undermines the conclusion.

Regards,

Shouvik.

IMO D
when you look at other options other than D ..its only D which shows that the two television cable/free have no difference...
rather D equals both of them under the premises on which the cable spokesperson is stating anything.
If the two are made and proved equal then the statment i left with no legs to stand.

I hope I am clear.

Conclusion: Cable television is a bargain in comparison to free television, in terms of cost to the consumers.
The total Cost of subscription in cable television + cost of advertisements if any (could be cheap/free) = Total cost of costly advertisements

Assumption : There are no other differences in the benefits provided by cable television and free television.
Possible weakeners : provide differences in cable and free, so that one should be better than other.

POE:

A) Consumers who do not own television sets are likely to be influenced in their purchasing decisions by television advertising that are consumers who own television sets.
<Deepak> OFS : Do not talk compare cable and free television, instead comparing people with television and people without television.

B) Subscriptions to cable television include access to some public-television channels, which do not accept advertising
<Deepak> We do not know if free television is having access to these channels. So we cannot infer anything from this statement.

C) For locations with poor television reception, cable television provides picture quality superior to that provided by free television
<Deepak> This answer choice is providing one instance where cable television is better than free.

D) There is as much advertising on cable-television channels as there is on "free" television channels.
<Deepak> There is no mention of price of advertisements in cable television. The cost of advertising on free channels is high and the cost of advertising on the cable television might be low, keeping the total cost to the consumers same. and so there is no difference between cable television and free television

E) Cable - television subscribers can choose which channels they wish to receive.
<Deepak> No mention of what free television subscribers can do. Cannot decide.

As per me, the answer choice C is a slight weakener. But since it is not the answer, i am confused. Can somebody please help me out.

HI Deepak,

Let me see if I can try and explain.

I think you've got the consituent parts confused.

The passage is saying:
Cable is cheaper than "free".

Note here there is no comment on better/worse, we're just talking about price

Because 'free' has adverts which are actually paid for by the public

Your option C:
Talks about quality of service. This is irrelevant. The comparison is on price not quality

Correct answer:
Gives a reason why Cable might not be cheaper. It has the same adverts as 'free'. Therefore if you add subscription costs it becomes more expensive.

That makes it correct

Hope that helps

james

Hi James,

Many thanks for the explanation.

One more doubt: it is not mentioned any where that the advertisement in Cable cost the same to public. The advertisements can be much cheaper because they are already charging subscription fee.

In this case we cannot conclusively say anything about that option.

Hi,

I think you're rather over analysing.

Remember the question says 'most damage' - so we're not looking for definite proof just a reason for damage.

The answer choice says 'as much' - which implies the two are about the same.

This is more than enough evidence to damage the point of view in the passage.

A general point - GMAT gives you 0 points for being overly clever and post rationalising. This is all about getting the correct answer. Find it and move on.

James

GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma
sayantanc2k

I was not able to identify conclusion in this argument.

Hi, Could you please explain the passage, i did not understand how this passage logically makes sense. This is more of an exception.

Conclusion: Subscriptions to cable television = a bargain in comparison to “free” television. [because of the following: “free” television is not really free; ultimately consumers pay for the costly ads that supports “free” tv]

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the position of the cable-television spokesperson?

(A) Consumers who do not own television sets are less likely to be influenced in their purchasing decisions by television advertising than are consumers who own television sets.
Out of scope – we’re not concerned about the influence and likely of influence on purchasing decisions. The conclusion is about the price of the two options: (1) subscription-based cable and (2) “free”

(B) Subscriptions to cable television include access to some public-television channels, which do not accept advertising.
Opposite (strengthener), if anything – this highlights a good thing about the option. You get access to some of the stuff from the public-tv channels (presumably, this is the free channels) and you have no ads. Sounds like a plus for me and why I might see it as a bargain (over the “free” tv, which presumably would have a bunch of costly ads that I may have to sit through.

(C) For locations with poor television reception, cable television provides picture quality superior to that provided by free television.
Opposite (strengthener), if anything – this shows why the cable version is more value. Why it could be seen more as a “bargain” than the other “free” version; you have superior quality, relative to that of the “free” version. But really, we’re focusing on the price.

(D) There is as much advertising on many cable-television channels as there is on “free” television channels.
Bingo – highlights a third element, which shows context of the situation. We have the same number of these ads (costly ads, to be specific) that the spokesperson said “consumers, in the end, who pay for costly advertising that supports “free” television.” So if (1) they both have the same number of ads and (2) one you have to pay and one you don’t, then the one where you don’t have to pay sounds like the bargain to me, weakening the conclusion that the other (paid) option is better.

(E) Cable-television subscribers can choose which channels they wish to receive, and the fees vary accordingly.
Opposite (strengthener), if anything – this could be a great thing. You pick and choose what you want and pay accordingly. This would be a bargain to me.

This is the quick solution I came up with:

Conc: Subscriptions to cable television are a bargain in comparison to "free" television.

(A) Consumers who do not own television sets are less likely to be influenced in their purchasing decisions by television advertising than are consumers who own television sets. -  The argument tries to differentiate between those who have subscriptions and those who don't and not between those who have television sets or not. As long as they've the television sets, both free and paid customers will likely be influenced by the ads they see. The option doesn't help with weakening the conclusion. Drop.

(B) Subscriptions to cable television include access to some public-television channels, which do not accept advertising. - This answers the question "Do all channels have advertisements?". The fact that some do and some don't doesn't change the fact that ads still affect customers regardless of paid or free, but to what degree remains to be seen. Drop

(C) For locations with poor television reception, cable television provides picture quality superior to that provided by free television. This states another way in which paid television is better than free, but doesn't substantiate or weaken the conclusion stated. Drop

(D) There is as much advertising on many cable-television channels as there is on “free” television channels. This removes the differentiating factor - offsetting the "bargain" on subscriptions. If the consumers are ultimately paying for the costly ads, then the subscription fee is on top of the cost for the ads. If the amount of ads shown in both tiers, i.e., free and paid is the same, the cost of subscription rather than being a bargain, becomes an overhead. This weakens the conclusion. Keep

(E) Cable-television subscribers can choose which channels they wish to receive, and the fees vary accordingly. - This answers the question "Can subscribers choose the channel they like to receive?". Whether, the answer to this is yes or no, we see that this doesn't impact the conclusion, i.e., "Is paid "cheaper" than free TV (in the grand scheme of things)?" Drop