MediaCritic: Network executives allege that television viewership is

I am ok with option B with "As a result" acting as an identifier

I am not able to understand why the answer is not C.

"declining viewership will cause advertising revenue to fall and networks will thus be unable to spend the large sums necessary to produce high quality programming." This portion explains the claim of the critic and the word "thus" provides the reasoning behind their claim. The 2nd BF statement clarifies the flawed reasoning by explaining an alternative process which would happen.

Am I missing something here? Experts please help.

Network executives:
other platforms -> decline in tv viewership -> ad rates will fall -> death of programming for other platforms

Media Critic:
research shows: users of alternative platforms exposed to new programs -> increase in tv viewership. Hence -> alternative platforms won't prevent networks from increasing advertising revenue.

BF1: declining viewership will cause advertising revenue to fall and networks will thus be unable to spend the large sums necessary to produce high quality programming.
BF2: as a result, actually increase the numbers of hours per week that they watch television.

BF1 supports the network executive's conclusion while BF2 supports the Media Critic's conclusion.
We are looking for the answer choice, in which BF1 and BF2 are on opposite side.

(A)The first is an inevitable trend that weighs against the critic's claim; the second is the claim. --> Wrong: BF1 and BF2 on same side
(B)The first is a prediction that is challenged by the argument; the second is a finding upon which the argument depends. --> Correct: BF1 and BF2 on opposite side
(C)The first clarifies the reasoning behind the critic’s claim; the second demonstrates why that claim is flawed. --> Wrong: BF1 does not clarify critic's claim. It clarifies execs claim
(D)The first acknowledges a position that the technology executives accept as true; the second is a consequence of that position. --> Wrong: First part of the choice is correct - BF1 is premise to execs conclusion. Second part is wrong - BF2 goes against the exec's position.
(E)The first opposes the critic's claim through an analogy; the second outlines a scenario in which that claim will not hold. --> Wrong: Second part of the answer choice wrong - BF2 is premise for critic's claim

Media critics argument:

Network executives allege that tv viewership is decreasing due to the availability of television programs on other platforms. (setting up the context for the argument)

These executives claim that declining viewership will cause advertising revenue to fall and networks will thus be unable to spend the large sums necessary to produce high quality programming. (Prediction by executives)

That development, in turn, will lead to a death of programming for the very devices that cannibalized television audience. (Further prediction by executives based on previous prediction)

However, research shows that users of alternative platforms are exposed to new programs and, as a result, actually increase the numbers of hours per week that they watch television.
(Premise supporting media critic's argument. His conclusion is based on this finding)

Conclusion of media critic: Alternative platforms will not prevent networks from increasing advertising revenue.

Now look at the question carefully. We need to find the role played by the bold portions in media critic's argument. Are they his premises, his conclusion, counter to conclusion, a point he concedes etc. The bold portions need to be reviewed from media critic's view.

(A) The first is an inevitable trend that weighs against the critic's claim; the second is the claim.

Nothing says that the first is "inevitable"

(B) The first is a prediction that is challenged by the argument; the second is a finding upon which the argument depends.

Correct. The argument says that alternative platforms will NOT prevent increase in advertising revenue. The first bold portion says that advertising revenues will fall. The conclusion is challenging the first bold portion.
The second bold portion is a finding on which the critic's conclusion is based.

jabhatta2
The second bold portion is all a part of "research shows"

"research shows that users of alternative platforms are exposed to new programs and, as a result, actually increase the numbers of hours per week that they watch television"
This is what the research shows - that other platforms increase exposure leading to increase in number of hrs of tv viewing.


(C) The first clarifies the reasoning behind the critic' s claim; the second demonstrates why that claim is flawed.

The first is counter to the critic's claim.

(D) The first acknowledges a position that the technology executives accept as true; the second is a consequence of that position.

First and second are against each other.

(E) The first opposes the critic's claim through an analogy; the second outlines a scenario in which that claim will not hold.

No analogy used.

Answer (B)

This one is flawed. It was originally an MPrep question, but someone has tried to edit it and made some very strange changes. In addition to some spelling trouble (we want "dearth," not "death"!), this one somehow omits that there were TWO groups of executives: network execs and tech execs. This one is not worth studying as is . . .