We need a flawed explanation for ad costs increasing.
A) Woah! The impersonator must be good at his job. Nevertheless, this does not justify why the ad cost will increase
B) People love watching a dictator insult a soft drink, don’t they? Yet it has nothing to do with our question
C) Okay. Good enough. So?
D) Everything remains as it is, despite losing a court case. Ad makers need good lawyers now! Anyway, nothing to with our question
E) Oh! So they did not use an original dictator and went straight to a court ultimately losing the case. So a sane mind would say they shouldn’t make a rendition of a “well -known TRADEMARK rant” too. Who knows, one more court case? This means it isn’t the dictator or the impersonator, but some other factor that is causing a bump in the ad cost. Which also means that the assumption of the Dictator causing the bump in ad cost is wrong. E should the answer.