Editorial: Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising

Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising persuades people that they need certain consumer goods when they merely desire them.
In life, it is often impossible to determine whether something is merely desirable or whether it is essential to one’s happiness.
Hence, this accusation rests on a fuzzy distinction .

Conclusion : The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction

IMO A

Critics: ads persuade people to buy stuffs they don't need
Editorial: the critics' claim is flawed because it fails to distinguish between need and want ⇽ conclusion
Not easy to distinguish between need and want ⇽ premise

Structure:
Sufficient → Necessary
People buy stuffs they don't need → advertising
weakened by: want and need isn't the same, therefore reasoning is not valid


(A) The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.
Sufficient → Necessary
people buy stuffs they don't want → ads
weaken: fuzzy distinction
same structure as passage has, seems correct

(B) Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people’s ability to distinguish between wants and needs.
Sufficient → Necessary
blur people's ability to distinguish → ads
sufficient condition slightly changed, statement cannot be inferred from the passage

(C) There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.
Sufficient → Necessary
persuade people that they need stuffs → ads
ads are all good to persuade people
answer choice reaches different conclusion
incorrect

(D) Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.
Sufficient → Necessary
human happiness → certain things
no ads in the equation. Answer choice just want to confuse you using random words from the passage.
negative

(E) Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.
Generalization.
Sufficient → Necessary
critics' claim → fuzzy distinction
invalid

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.