Bunuel wrote:
Editorial: “Spam,” or unsolicited commercial email, exists only because a significant number of people buy the advertised products. A response by just one recipient out of every thousand receiving a spam message makes spam profitable enough to encourage certain businesses to send more. But any benefits the few respondents receive from the purchased products are surely outweighed by the nuisance that spam creates for the vast number of uninterested recipients. Therefore, it is socially irresponsible to buy anything advertised through spam.
Which of the following, if assumed, would enable the conclusion of the editorial’s argument to be properly drawn?
A. Doing anything that encourages a person or organization to act in a way that creates a nuisance for many more people than it benefits is socially irresponsible.
B. Any socially irresponsible action creates a nuisance for at least some other people.
C. At least some socially irresponsible actions create a nuisance for a vast number of people while benefiting few if any people.
D. It is socially irresponsible for a business to send spam to a vast number of uninterested recipients in order to reach only a few interested recipients.
E. When deciding whether to purchase an advertised product, one should consider whether the benefits one will receive from the product outweigh the nuisance the advertising creates for other people.
Where in the argument author assuming? It is in the second last statement which says "If few people actually buy something from the email that means it is creating nuisance for vast number of uninterested people". While it may be true in real life, in this case author is saying doing so is socially irresponsible. Huh? So may be the author is assuming that few people actually know how many people are receiving the email? Or may be few people actually realise that it can cause such a big deal?
Let's evaluate options.
A. Doing anything that encourages a person or organization to act in a way that creates a nuisance for many more people than it benefits is socially irresponsible.
This makes sense. If I am buying something, I do have a realisation that I am encouraging the organisation to keep sending these emails. If this is not true then the conclusion in the last statement will go for a toss. B. Any socially irresponsible action creates a nuisance for at least some other people.
True in general but not the point here.C. At least some socially irresponsible actions create a nuisance for a vast number of people while benefiting few if any people.
More on the lines of B that it is a general statement. But here we have another assumption that I know my action is socially irresponsible. We get emails from amazon (just an example) everyday so if I end up buying something does not mean I will think oh my god amazon sends such email to millions of people every day. Who cares? D. It is socially irresponsible for a business to send spam to a vast number of uninterested recipients in order to reach only a few interested recipients.
Plain out of context.E. When deciding whether to purchase an advertised product, one should consider whether the benefits one will receive from the product outweigh the nuisance the advertising creates for other people.
This does make sense but how will those few people know? May be 20% of the world does not even know what is a spam email.