Asad wrote:
Quote:
For the first time in history, more televisions than people can be found in American households. According to recent research, the average household has 2.55 residents and contains 2.73 televisions. However, by employing such costly manufacturing processes as plasma technology and flat screens, televisions are becoming too expensive for the typical consumer. As a result, the average number of residents per household will again surpass the number of televisions.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?
(A) House parties at which numerous individuals gather to view popular television shows on one television set have increased three hundred percent during the past year.
(B) More than one million legal immigrants enter the United States each year.
(C) New devices such as video-enabled personal digital assistants and music players are increasingly purchased for use as a primary source of information and entertainment.
(D) As new technologies become more commonplace, manufacturing and retail costs normally decline.
(E) As a result of technological advances, new televisions are increasingly enabled with some features, such as Internet browsing, traditionally associated with other household devices.
Hello,
Experts,
May I have your attention on the following query?
q1:who will confirm that ''video enabled personal assistant are LESS expensive than plasma TV in C?
q2:The author never says that "tv has been used as entertainment and information". Tv COULD be used for OTHER reason! So, it seems that there is NO consistency with the argument and the answer choice!
Or, Am I missing anything?
Thanks__
Hello,
Asad. To keep matters concise, the answer to q1 is that the cost of
the replacement devices in (C) is irrelevant. The cost could be higher for all we know, but it is the cost of televisions themselves that could be off-putting
for the typical consumer. For a real-world parallel, consider mobile phones and televisions. Many people think nothing of dropping several hundred dollars on a phone, but they would balk at the notion of spending the same amount of money on a television. It is simply a matter of priorities and market factors--i.e. many people are willing to spend up to so much on a mobile phone but not on a television. I agree with your perspective in q2 that the television functions are not defined in the passage, but the reader is meant to understand what a television is just by the use of the word. Consider, too, how you describe the activity of using a television: you
watch TV. You can watch it for news (i.e. information) or entertainment, but neither one is much of a stretch. (Why else would you sit in front of a box for hours at a time?) If other devices
could take on some of the functions that televisions had been used for traditionally, then such a shift
could understandably mark a downtown for the sale of televisions, especially if the televisions themselves were increasing in price and deterring consumers from buying them. The presentation of the question may not be perfect, but choice (C) is the best, most logical answer of the lot.
I hope that helps. If you have further questions, I would be happy to offer my thoughts.
- Andrew