Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 22:11 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 22:11
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
RobertVericPrep
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2020
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 1
Location: United States
Schools: Kellogg (A)
Schools: Kellogg (A)
Posts: 65
Kudos: 8
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo 10 Jul 2026, 16:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The first step is always to identify the conclusion, i.e. the sentence (or part of a sentence) that answers the question, "What is the author trying to convince us?" Here, the conclusion is:

"Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues."

Now let's ask, Why does the author believe this?

The reasoning is

- Licensing a magazine's name is normally risky because if the product is poor, the magazine's reputation suffers, leading to lower circulation and less advertising revenue.

- But experts have determined that this cookware is superior, so the author believes consumers won't be disappointed.

- Therefore, the author concludes that the magazine's existing revenue streams (circulation and advertising) are safe.

Notice what the author has NOT considered.

The argument only addresses one possible threat, that consumers might dislike the cookware.

But there is another obvious way the magazine's advertising revenue could decline: What if cookware manufacturers stop advertising in the magazine because it now appears to be promoting a competing cookware brand?

That possibility has nothing to do with the cookware's quality. Even if the licensed cookware is outstanding, rival cookware companies might decide, "Why should we advertise in a magazine that's effectively endorsing one of our competitors?"

If that happened, the magazine's advertising revenue, one of its "other revenues", would indeed be endangered.

That is exactly what answer (C) rules out.

(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

This is a necessary assumption. Without it, the conclusion falls apart.


The Negation Test makes this crystal clear. Negate (C):

Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Now advertising revenue declines, even though consumers love the cookware. The conclusion that Kitchen can collect licensing fees without endangering its other revenues is no longer valid.

So (C) must be true for the argument to work. That makes (C) the correct answer.


Here is why the other choices are wrong

(A) No other line of cookware is superior...

We already know the cookware is superior to the other cookware advertised in the magazine. Even if some cookware elsewhere is better, that doesn't affect the conclusion about Kitchen's other revenues.

(B) Kitchen will not license its name for any other products.

Whether the magazine licenses its name to additional products is irrelevant to whether this particular licensing deal threatens its circulation or advertising revenue.

(D) Consumers who are not regular readers will be attracted to the cookware.

The argument is about protecting the magazine's existing revenue, not increasing cookware sales.

(E) Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking magazines.

The magazine doesn't need to be among the most prestigious for the argument to work. Its absolute prestige is irrelevant. The issue is whether licensing this cookware will hurt its existing revenue streams.
User avatar
findingmyself
User avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 244
Own Kudos:
179
Given Kudos: 72
Posts: 244
Kudos: 179
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo 29 Aug 2026, 06:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB

C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.- Also are we going too far fetched in assuming that other revenues are contributed by Makes of cookwares. isnt that an assumption within an assumption. We know that other cookware makers advertise in Kitchen. (this itself is an assumption is my view since that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the stem)

B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

This is irrelevant. We don’t need to assume no other future collaborations.

I understand your point that this is irrelevant. Will this answer be a good strengthener? If the question were about strengthen the argument, this would have fitted as apt?

KarishmaB

­

Premises:

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware.

For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising.

However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen.

Conclusion:

Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

We need to find the gap in the argument. The first thing that jumps up – ‘Other revenues’ have not even been mentioned in the premises. We are concluding that they will not be impacted by the licensing.

Also, experts have found the cookware superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen, not all other cookware in this price range. What if all cookware advertised in Kitchen are low quality and so is this particular cookware (but better comparatively). So concluding that the cookware is good quality may be a bit premature. Let’s look at the options.

A. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.

We need this cookware to be high quality, not necessarily the best.

B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

This is irrelevant. We don’t need to assume no other future collaborations. 


C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

We are assuming that other revenues will not get impacted. So we are assuming that advertisers will not find Kitchen a less attractive vehicle due to the licensing.

Negated: Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle.
We know that other cookware makers advertise in Kitchen. If Kitchen becomes less attractive to them, Kitchen may lose revenues. Our conclusion breaks.
Correct. 


D. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.



We are talking about the revenue of Kitchen magazine. If consumers buy the cookware, it will not impact Kitchen magazine’s revenues (since Kitchen will get just the licensing fee). Hence this is irrelevant.

E. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.

No such assumption needed. There may be other more prestigious cooking-related magazines.

Answer (C)

Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU

A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU­
Show more
User avatar
findingmyself
User avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 244
Own Kudos:
179
Given Kudos: 72
Posts: 244
Kudos: 179
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo 29 Aug 2026, 06:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Why are we assuming here that makes of cookware are the ONLY advertising agents in the kitchen magazine? why should we take such a huge assumption?

RobertVericPrep
The first step is always to identify the conclusion, i.e. the sentence (or part of a sentence) that answers the question, "What is the author trying to convince us?" Here, the conclusion is:

"Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues."

Now let's ask, Why does the author believe this?

The reasoning is

- Licensing a magazine's name is normally risky because if the product is poor, the magazine's reputation suffers, leading to lower circulation and less advertising revenue.

- But experts have determined that this cookware is superior, so the author believes consumers won't be disappointed.

- Therefore, the author concludes that the magazine's existing revenue streams (circulation and advertising) are safe.

Notice what the author has NOT considered.

The argument only addresses one possible threat, that consumers might dislike the cookware.

But there is another obvious way the magazine's advertising revenue could decline: What if cookware manufacturers stop advertising in the magazine because it now appears to be promoting a competing cookware brand?

That possibility has nothing to do with the cookware's quality. Even if the licensed cookware is outstanding, rival cookware companies might decide, "Why should we advertise in a magazine that's effectively endorsing one of our competitors?"

If that happened, the magazine's advertising revenue, one of its "other revenues", would indeed be endangered.

That is exactly what answer (C) rules out.

(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

This is a necessary assumption. Without it, the conclusion falls apart.


The Negation Test makes this crystal clear. Negate (C):

Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Now advertising revenue declines, even though consumers love the cookware. The conclusion that Kitchen can collect licensing fees without endangering its other revenues is no longer valid.

So (C) must be true for the argument to work. That makes (C) the correct answer.


Here is why the other choices are wrong

(A) No other line of cookware is superior...

We already know the cookware is superior to the other cookware advertised in the magazine. Even if some cookware elsewhere is better, that doesn't affect the conclusion about Kitchen's other revenues.

(B) Kitchen will not license its name for any other products.

Whether the magazine licenses its name to additional products is irrelevant to whether this particular licensing deal threatens its circulation or advertising revenue.

(D) Consumers who are not regular readers will be attracted to the cookware.

The argument is about protecting the magazine's existing revenue, not increasing cookware sales.

(E) Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking magazines.

The magazine doesn't need to be among the most prestigious for the argument to work. Its absolute prestige is irrelevant. The issue is whether licensing this cookware will hurt its existing revenue streams.
Show more
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 1,830
Own Kudos:
14,405
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,830
Kudos: 14,405
 [1]
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo 29 Aug 2026, 07:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
findingmyself
Hi KarishmaB

C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.- Also are we going too far fetched in assuming that other revenues are contributed by Makes of cookwares. isnt that an assumption within an assumption. We know that other cookware makers advertise in Kitchen. (this itself is an assumption is my view since that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the stem)

B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

This is irrelevant. We don’t need to assume no other future collaborations.

I understand your point that this is irrelevant. Will this answer be a good strengthener? If the question were about strengthen the argument, this would have fitted as apt?


Show more

I’d say there are two separate points here.

For (C), we do not have to assume that cookware makers advertise in Kitchen. The passage explicitly says the cookware was found superior to “all other cookware advertised in Kitchen,” so we already know that other cookware is advertised there. We also know that advertising is one of Kitchen’s revenues. Thus, if those cookware manufacturers stop advertising because Kitchen is now associated with a competing product, the conclusion that its other revenues are safe is threatened. That is why (C) is required.

For (B), I would not call it a good strengthener. Even if Kitchen never licenses its name to any other product, that does not make this particular cookware licensing arrangement any safer. The current arrangement could still damage advertising or circulation. So (B) removes a possible future risk but does not meaningfully strengthen the argument about the present licensing decision.
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 1,830
Own Kudos:
14,405
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,830
Kudos: 14,405
 [1]
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo 29 Aug 2026, 08:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
findingmyself
Why are we assuming here that makes of cookware are the ONLY advertising agents in the kitchen magazine? why should we take such a huge assumption?


Show more

I think that assumption is not being made at all. The argument does not require cookware manufacturers to be the only advertisers in Kitchen.

The passage explicitly tells us that other cookware is advertised in the magazine, so some cookware manufacturers are advertisers. The conclusion says that licensing the name will not endanger any of Kitchen’s other revenues, including advertising revenue.

If those cookware advertisers now find Kitchen less attractive because it is associated with a competing product, even part of the magazine’s advertising revenue could be threatened. That alone is enough to damage the conclusion.

So (C) requires only that this particular source of advertising revenue not be endangered, not that cookware makers provide all advertising revenue.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,645
Own Kudos:
81,212
 [2]
Given Kudos: 491
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,645
Kudos: 81,212
 [2]
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo 30 Aug 2026, 00:32
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[color=#2980b9]C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. [/color]

Mentioned in the argument: However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen.
So we know that other cookwares advertise in the magazine which means Kitchen is receiving revenue from other cookware companies currently.


B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

No, it is not a strengthener. The argument is about current revenue streams vs licensing fee it will charge to lend its name to the cookware line. Whether the licensing fee with affect its other revenues. Whether it licenses the use of its name for any other products in the future has no impact whatsoever on our current discussion.



findingmyself
Hi KarishmaB

C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.- Also are we going too far fetched in assuming that other revenues are contributed by Makes of cookwares. isnt that an assumption within an assumption. We know that other cookware makers advertise in Kitchen. (this itself is an assumption is my view since that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the stem)


B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

This is irrelevant. We don’t need to assume no other future collaborations.

I understand your point that this is irrelevant. Will this answer be a good strengthener? If the question were about strengthen the argument, this would have fitted as apt?
Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts