Market researchers recently reported that ninety percent of the people

+1 B

If consumers are not familiar with the advertisement, they can or cannot object it.

However, I have a different approach to eliminate C.

If we negate choice C:

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT most of the people who do not buy this detergent consider its advertisements to be objectionable.

In other words: most of the people who do not buy this detergent consider its advertisements to be UNobjectionable.

This claim doesn't weaken the conclusion because the conclusion indicates that at LEAST 20 percent of the consumers consider the advertisement unobjectionable. This means that not only the people who buy the detergent (20%) consider the advertisement unobjectionable but the people who don't buy it CAN also consider it in the same way. So, assuming what choice C says would be in some sense the opposite of what the author is claiming.

What do you think?

Source is definitely wrong.

This can never be an official question, as this question is just awfully developed.

Option B is one of the assumptions needed to reach the conclusion. Hence, it is the answer here. But another fundamental assumption the author relies upon while
drawing the conclusion is that the consumers who object to the detergent's advertisement do not buy the detergent. Because otherwise we might have more that 80 %
of consumers who object to the advertisement but still buy the detergent and this weakens the conclusion..

Guys any thoughts on this.

Yes, you are correct, that would be another assumption (people who object to an advertisement do not buy the detergent). Option A is a trap answer because it is the reverse of that assumption (people would still buy even if they object) and people will look at Option A and see it's perfectly relevant but miss that it's arguing in the wrong direction (assumption support the conclusion).

Good work,
KW

Market researchers recently reported that ninety percent of the people interviewed objected to a particular detergent's advertisement because of their portrayal of women. Yet this detergent is purchased by twenty percent of consumers. So its advertisements must be considered to be unobjectionable to at least twenty percent of consumers.

ARGUMENT: ninety percent of people interviewed objected to ad
20% bought the the produce
Conclsuion : 20% don’t object to ad

THINK:
HUGE GAP “: ADVERTISEMENTS vs PURCHASE .
We only know about the people who object and we are coclsuidng about people who BUY.
LOGICAL GAP. We are assuming that if 20% but they don’t object
SO the link is between “object” and “not buying” …what if these people (who bought )have not actually seen the ad?? Then how can we conclude about objection on the basis of purchase??
Also we are assuming that” objecting “ leads to “not buying”
Can there be a possibility that people who object are also the people who buy??? Afer all they object the ad not the product !!
So assumption are :
1.People who buy have seen or know the ad
2.People who object DO NOT BUY.

The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumption?

(A) People who object to a product's advertisements may still buy that product.
- WEAKENS … conclusion will shatter if the buyers and the objectors are the same

(B) The people who buy this detergent are familiar with its advertisement.
- CORRECT

(C) Most of the people who do not buy this detergent consider this advertisements to be objectionable.
- The only way you could’ve selected this if you used negation wrongly…
Wrong negation – Most of the people who BUY this det consider the ad objectionable.
If you read it like this the negation shatters BUT the crucial point to note is YOU CANNOT negate the part in the modifier “ people who do not buy” this is a modifier and not the part of the sentence.

(D) Most people wash their own clothes, so they have to buy some brand of detergent.
- USELESS
(E) Most of the people in the market research study were women.
-USLESS

The correct answer is option B.

Understanding the passage
- Market Researchers report:
1. 90% of people interviewed objected to a particular detergent ad
2. Reason: Portrayal of women
- Data: Despite the above, this detergent is purchased by 20% of all consumers
- Conclusion: The detergent's ads must be considered to be unobjectionable (i.e. no objections) for at least 20% of customers

Pre-Thinking
Conclusion: The detergent's ads must be considered to be unobjectionable (i.e. no objections) for at least 20% of customers
Falsification Question: In what scenario will the detergent's ads NOT be considered to be unobjectionable (i.e. no objections) for at least 20% of customers?

Condition: What if the people who buy this product are not the same as the people who see the ads? In such a case, it is not that the ad is not unobjectionable. It is just that these people who actually bought the detergent have not seen the ad. These people would also have a problem with the ad, just that they have not seen it.In such a case, the author cannot claim that 20% of the customers found the ad unobjectionable.

Assumption: The people who bought the detergent have viewed this advertisement

Option Choice Analysis
(A) People who object to a product's advertisements may still buy that product.
Lets try negating this choice, as it seems like a strong contender!

Negation: People who object to a product's ads may not buy that product. Here, it means that people who objected to the detergent ad may or may not buy the detergent. The problem is "may".
It is possible that people who object (90%) may still buy the product. Now, in a case where the results of the study translate to the entire population correctly -

Assume a population of 100. Lets take the case that all of them have seen this ad.

Then, 90% or 90 of them found the ad objectionable.

20% i.e. 20 out of 100 bought the detergent. Because of the 'may' in the option negation, this entire 20 could be composed of people who found the ad objectionable (from the 90 - because they may still buy the product, despite the ad).

So, the conclusion will not necessarily break when the option is negated, because of 'may'. Not the correct answer.

(B) The people who buy this detergent are familiar with its advertisement.
Correct, and in line with our analysis. If all 20 who bought the detergent did not see the ad (negation), then the author cannot claim that the ad was unobjectionable for 20% (it is just that they have not seen the ad). Hence the conclusion breaks, this option is correct.

(C) Most of the people who do not buy this detergent consider this advertisements to be objectionable.

The option talks about a different segment (those who did not buy the detergent) whereas the conclusion is about those who bought the detergent. Even if most (>50%) of people who do not buy the detergent (say 80) consider ads to be objectionable, the 20 who bought the detergent could be from either group - people who had an objection, or people who did not have an objection. Hence, this statement does not really help the author in asserting his claim/conclusion. So, it cannot be the correct assumption.

D) Most people wash their own clothes, so they have to buy some brand of detergent.

Not relevant to this argument.

(E) Most of the people in the market research study were women.
Also not relevant to the argument.

Market researchers recently reported that ninety percent of the people interviewed objected to a particular detergent's advertisement because of their portrayal of women. Yet this detergent is purchased by twenty percent of consumers. So its advertisements must be considered to be unobjectionable to at least twenty percent of consumers.

The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumption?

Pre Thinking:
Falsification: In what scenario will the ads not be considered unobjectionable to 20% of the consumers given they purchase the detergent and given that market researchers said that 90% of people interviewed objected to the ads?

- If they have not seen the ads?


(A) People who object to a product's advertisements may still buy that product.
Not a must be true. 90% interview set and 20% consumers are probably diff sets

(B) The people who buy this detergent are familiar with its advertisement.
Important! people who buy HAVE TO HAVE SEEN THE AD for the conclusion to hold true

(C) Most of the people who do not buy this detergent consider this advertisements to be objectionable.
irrelevant. Why are we talking about people who don't buy? In no way does it prove anything about people who do buy

(D) Most people wash their own clothes, so they have to buy some brand of detergent.
Irrelevant.

(E) Most of the people in the market research study were women.
Absolutely irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything

I came across this question today in the course of my own studies and wondered the same thing. To be clear, I agree with many other posters that (B) is the correct answer. However, the pronoun their (highlighted below) in the first line of the passage is grammatically incorrect, unless the singular advertisement (underlined below) is meant to be the plural advertisements instead. Such a reference would then agree with the later reference to its advertisements.

I suspect that there was a transcription error, one that was subsequently preserved on other sites, and that this IS an official question, although I do not possess the GMAT Paper Tests to verify.

- Andrew

Bunuel, other mods: I checked all 9 paper tests and this q does not appear in any of them. can u guys pls confirm and remove the tag accordingly? thanks

Removed the tag. Thank you!

P.S. I found this question in "ANUBHAV MOCK TEST" (have no idea what it is) and the OA there is B.

Premises:

90% of the people interviewed objected to a particular detergent's advertisement because of their portrayal of women.

This detergent is purchased by 20% of consumers.

Conclusion:

its advertisements must be considered to be unobjectionable to at least 20% of consumers.


Let's pre-think here since it helps in assumption questions.

To conclude that at least 20% people do not object to the ad, we are assuming that these people who bought the detergent have seen the ad.
We are also assuming that if someone buys a detergent, it means they agree to the ad.
This is another way of saying that only if they agree to the ad, do they buy the detergent.
Another way of saying that is if they find the ad objectionable, they do not buy the detergent.

Any one of these could be among the options as our answer.
Option (B) provides us with one of our assumptions.
Option (A) is the opposite of what we were looking for.
In option (C), we are not assuming that people who do not buy, do not buy due to the ad. There could be many reasons why someone doesn't buy a particular brand of detergent. We are assuming about people who bought the detergent.

Answer (B)