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

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


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


Premise 1: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware
Premise 2:.......... since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising Kitchen's revenue will arise from 1) licensing 2) advertisements from makers of cookware 3) circulation
Premise 3 : However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. (no risk on licensing since it is evaluated by experts)
Conclusion : Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.(If Kitchen license its name then other cookware producers will not give adds, thus the revenue will be lessen. )

Let me take a guess.
E is one of the extreme answer that rarely will be right.
D I don't know, it does seem to relate to the circulation of the magazine though.
B products other than the line of cookware seems out of scope
A seems wrong to me too, but I don't know how to explain why it is wrong.

I will guess C. Since the conclusion says 'Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues', it is assuming that there is no other ways to endanger its other revenues. In other words, the quality of line of cookware is the only factor that might damage its other revenues. C kind of rules out other possibilities. Maker of cookware do want to advertise.

In such type of choices I feel it is better to use the Denial Test i.e. by denying the options can the argument be destroyed. You will arrive at the answer C. If the advertisers indeed have any objections they will not advertise in the magazine, and this destroys our argument.
_________________

Yes....I had also guessed it C only. C and D can be narrowed down. others r irrelevant. Here the punch line is the last line .

Let me try..
A: Doesnt matter even if some other cookware is superior to the one using kitchen's name. In fact I see a scope shift "other line of cook ware" vs "other line of cookware advertised in kitchen". Eliminate.
B: Again who cares.. if it does lic to brand of shaving cream as long as it can get revenues. It may or may not work. So this is not an assumption. Eliminate.

C: Well now if C is true, then then the other makers of cookware who have till now advertised in kitchen might stop advertising in Kitchen. This could lead to loss of revenue.So C could be the answer.

D: What if this is not true.... no harm done. u will not increase revenue but u may/maynot lose revenue.. Eliminate.

E: Who cares is kitchen is not the most prestigeous mag.. Eliminate.

So C is my answer.

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

If the makers of cookware find kitchen magazine attractive then there is scope for kitchen magazine to generate revenue

but if the makers of cookware dont find kitchen magazine attractive then that would hurt the magazine's revenue which they get fro0m advertisements.

option (C) would strengthen and weaken the conclusion when we test with the extremes

Premise 1: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name for a line of cookware
Premise 2: Licensing the name of the magazine generates some risks since if the products disappoint customers, the magazine's prestige will be affected, therefore, magazine's advertising rev will be impacted negatively.
Premise 3: According the evaluation of some experts, this cookware is the most prestigious brand compare to other brands advertised on Kitchen magazine.
Conclusion: Kitchen magazine can collect licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.

Considering the 5 answer choices:
a. This is the refrase of one premise, not an assumption
b. Out of scope answer
c. This is the correct answer. The Kitchen magazine has its own strengths and it can evaluate and agree to license its name to the cookware line. But the cookware line has its own position - it is superior to other brands advertised on Kitchen magazine - and the brand also considers if it's worth to pay for licensing fee on the Kitchen magazine while there are other cookware brands already advertised in this magazine. The assumption close the gap in the argument "yes, I agree with the proposition from you".
d. Out of scope answer
e. The magazine is prestigous, the cookware brand also prestigious. So, one side agree to do business does not mean that the other side also agree.

i guess the answer is C.

The magazine assumes that other cookware manufacturers will continue to advertise in spite of same product offered under magazine brand name.

P1: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware.
P2: If the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising.
P3: Experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen.
C1: Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

The magazine reasons that because the cookware is superior to anything else on the market it will not disappoint customers and the magazine will be able to maintain its reputation, circulation, advertising, etc. From this reasoning the magazine concludes that collecting licensing fees from licensing its name to a line of cookware will not endanger its other revenues. We need an assumption that supports this conclusion.

C. "Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product." Correct. If companies find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because magazine's name is associated with a competing product, they will be less likely to advertise in the magazine. This would adversely affect the magazine's advertising revenue and invalidate the conclusion. Therefore, the magazine's conclusion assumes that this will not happen.

What's wrong with D? If we negate D, " Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will not be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name." Doesn't it weaken/attack the argument? If readers don't find the product attractive then won't the name of magazine get tarnished as suggested in the premise which in turn would hurt the revenues?

Keep an eye on the conclusion:
Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

D talks about consumers who are NOT regular readers, so even with D negated the argument holds.
D says that "consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will not be attracted", but they could still maintain the regular readers and the other advertisers. The argument is still valid.

With C we are sure that the magazine will lose other revenues: if we negate it
C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.
===> the other revenues are endangered.

C for me too.

Magazine is talking about there decision to be associated with cookware company.

they are assuming that company is willing to be associated. but who knows they are or not.

NEGATION TEST: if the company is NOT willing then conclusion FALL APART. hence proves answer C.

Hi,

conclusion:
KITCHEN can collect fees ==>sure it will not loose other revenues.

now we are concerned only about the consequence which could happen because of this action....and not because what other things KITCHEN magazine will /will not do.

option B says:b. Kitchenwillnot license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.==>this one is out of context...we are not worried about the harms by other action..which kitchen will do in future...hence this is wrong

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

NOW IN THIS OPTION it is saying all other makers(not the one from whom kitchen is going to get fese)==>they will not find kitchen less attractive for advertisements...
now if they find KITCHEN less attractive because KITCHEN is going to endrse a competetive product(from whom KICHEN is going to get fees)==>It means other cookware will not advertise in this magazine==>hence it is losing revenue...===>hence this is the assumption ...as it is shattering the conclusion

hope it helps.

Kitchen magazine is seeking to earn new income from the licensing fees and maintain income from Circulation and Advertising. Only the success or failure of the cookware line is seen as affecting income from Circulation and Advertising. They are assuming no other factors come into play. Answer C is one of those assumptions.

best strategy.

1) evaluate each sentence of the stimulus

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

a fact

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 reductions in circulation and advertising.

a possible setback of this strategy

However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen.T herefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.

shift in the argument and consequentely consclusion

this is the part that the assumption is related and is the key part of the entire argument

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

too extreme: no other line and also a comparison. not related to something that permits to collect fee without endagering the company

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

other than something..........not related

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

Bingo. if the makers FIND the kitchen magazine less attractive, we have less fees and the company is endagered by the magazine. this assumption defends the argument. so is perfect

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

what the reader do is not related to our fee

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

wheter the magazine is well regognized or not is not related


I hope it helps you. do not esitate to ask if something remains unclear to you
_________________

Thanks for the excellent explanation.
While doing this question on GMAT Prep, I was confused between A and B, but marked B because it states that Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.
I thought since Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues, it will do so only for the line of cookware and not any other products.
Hence, I went with B.

Could you please explain the flaw in my reasoning.

Sure

Now, I would like you to give an advice: when you face a question (is not important whether is quant like or verbal) try to simplify the argument and put yourself in THAT situation or scenario.

The magazine want to put on a series of cookware its name: for instance a new car is branded by Dolce & Gabbana. Eventually, this is strategy is maded to gain reputation and money (but of course).

The problem is: can we do this without have some cons ?? then, consequentely, the argument and our reasoning MUST be true for our conslcuion: Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.

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

Basically here is suggested what : we will not give to ANOTHER LINE of the same product our brand. BUT we are really concerned of what ??? this is said in the second sentence of the stimulus

if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reductions in circulation and advertising

we care about of ads and reputation that could be endagered NOT whether or not we give our name to another line of cookware.

Indeed, B is really far away from the scanario in which we have to draw an assumption.

Hope is clear
_________________

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

Reasoning: Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues only if...
The argument above assumes which of the following?

a. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. Wrong - Out of scope. The argument is not committed to this. Besides, experts have already found it superior to all other cookware.

b. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware. Wrong - Shell game. Even if Kitchen licenses other products, other revenues may or may not be endangered.

c. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. Correct - The argument is committed to this sentence because it directly addresses that other lines of revenue will not be endangered.

d. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name. Wrong - Whether or not non-regular readers are attracted to the magazine, the argument is committed to how other revenues are affected. Out of scope.

e. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines. Wrong - same reasoning as D. Out of scope.

IMO C

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

The argument above assumes which of the following?
a. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. -This is repetition of what is written in the premise
b. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware. -We are worried about the revenues from other such sources as advertisement and readers. This option doesn't talk about the revenue from alternate sources.
c. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. -Correct. If the advertisers withdraw from the magazine then it will be a loss of revenue for the magazine.
d. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name. -We are worried about the attraction to magazine and not to cookware.
e. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines. -Irrelevant