D
Quote:
Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular advertisers have been pressuring us to give favorable mention to their products in our articles, but they should realize that for us to yield to their wishes would actually be against their interests. To remain an effective advertising vehicle, we must have loyal readership, and we would soon lost that readership if our readers suspect that our editorial integrity has been compromised by pandering to advertisers.
Understand : - editor's conclusion : favourable mention of products will actually be against the advertisers' interest
- why? to remain effective >> want loyal readership >> for loyal readership >> integrity of articles should not be lost.
- when readers suspect that integrity is compromised because of advertisements >> loyal readership is lost >> mazgine no more effective>> against the interest of advertisers.
Quote:
Advertising-sales director: You underestimate the sophistication of our readers. They recognize that the advertisements we carry are not articles, so their response to the advertisements has never depended on their opinion of the editorial integrity of the magazine as a whole.
- Readers know that advertisemnets and articles are different , so their assesmnet of advertisment is independant of the opinion of integrity of the mag as a whole
The sales guy talks about response to advertisments and the editor talks about compromise of integrity leading to loss of readership.
So basically both are addressing different issues.
Quote:
Which one of the following is the most accurate assessment of the advertising-sales director’s argument as a response to the magazine editor’s argument?
- we have to judge the sales guy's response to editor
Think : The editor say that when readers see FAVOURABLE MENTION OF ADVERTISERS' PRODUCT IN articles and how this leads to suspicion of the integrity of articles and therby loss of readership. BUT sales guy thinks that the editor is talking about advertisments in magazines in genral and not the favourable mention of products IN the articles. So he says that readers know that advertisments are not articles, but the editor is talking about advertisment IN the article . SO basically we are compromising the integrity of the magazines right?? INTEGRITY = honesty/unfavoured /clean .
Editor never talks about response of readers to the advertisments they see
in magazines. . he talks about favourable mention IN the articles.
For eg :
if we open the economist magazine there are dozens of advertisments lurking around , but do the ARTICLES
explicitly mention any product of some company for the sole reason of advertisment
IN THE ARTICLES. Sure you'll see advertisements AROUND the articles but do you see any mention of a product and that too in an endorsing tone?? I havent !!
let us consider a magazing XYZ
You are reading an article . You'll see many ads around (so annoying) . The advertisers want to the editor to MENTION THEIR PRODUCTS IN A FAVOURABLE MANNER IN THEIR ARTICLES. EMPHASIS ON
IN THEIR ARTICLES . Now imagine you are reading an article, but suddenly you start reading some about some product which may or may not be relevant to the topic.
Thing you feel :1) What the hell is this doing here?? 2) Oh so XYZ is greedy for money 3) There are tons of products why is it mentioning only this porduct? Maybe XYZ is favouring this product . 4) Basically , if they are being favourable to this product , then what's the point of reading any of its articles?? they may all be biased right??? I may stop subsrbing tot his mag because of the loss of INTEGRITY (unbiased/ ethical ) of artciles.
This is exactly what the point the editor is making.
Sales guy : readers know that advertisements are not articles. Hey sales bro ! are you even talking about the specific "favourable mention in articles" or are you just talking about
ads in mag in general. Becasue if that's the point you are making then you are either new here or you are fired because you are NOT TALKING about my concern (favourable mention in the article). I agree with you that ppl know that ads and articles are different, but what about the ads IN ARTICLES??? who is gonna talk about that?? so how they evaluate the ads is not my concern !! please be specific about my concern or get out !!
Quote:
(A) It succeeds because it shows that the editor’s argument depends on an unwarranted assumption about factors affecting an advertisement’s effectiveness.
- Does not succeed , because both are talking about different aspects
Quote:
(B) It success because it exposes as mistaken the editor’s estimation of the sophistication of the magazine’s readers.
- Does not succeed
Quote:
(C) It succeeds because it undermines the editor’s claim about how the magazine’s editorial integrity would be affected by allowing advertisers to influence articles
.
-does not succeed
Quote:
(D) It fails because the editor’s argument does not depend on any assumption about readers’ response to the advertisements they see in the magazine.
- CORRECT- The editor is concerned about the loss of integrity of the articles becasue of FAVOURABLE mention of product IN the article and not about the response to ads they see in magazines. Every magazine has many ads but editor is concerned about MENTION IN ARTCILE in the magazne and not ads around the articles.
Quote:
(E) It fails because it is based on a misunderstanding of the editor’s view about how readers respond to advertisements they see in the magazine.
- the sales guy does not misunderstand editor's view about readers' view on ads they see IN MAGZ. editor is concerned about preserving the
INTEGRITY/ ethics of the article and not about response to ads in MAGZ. to misunderstand a view , there has to be a view . But editor's view is completely different.
Note: There may be instances in which you'll find that i am tgalking about a website but just consider a magazine. But magazine or website , there is no difference in the explanation
close
19 Nov 2018, 01:21
72%
(02:44)
wrong 
