Drug manufacturer: Television audiences are sure to realize

Dear alchemist009,

I'm happy to help with this.

BTW, you specify no source, but this appears to be copied from somewhere. What is the source?

The drug manufacturer is arguing against the TV network's ban on its advertisement. It would seem that reason for the ban may be giving the false impression that a doctor is recommending the cough syrup. The drug manufacturer suggests that the audience will already know it's an actor playing this doctor.

The TV executive counters --- if they can tell he's an actor, why have him in the ad at all? It's a contradiction --- why have a "doctor" in the ad for his presume credibility if everyone is going to see that he's not really a doctor, just an actor playing a doctor?

You simply indicated an incorrect answer of (E) and the OA of (A), so I will just discuss only those two.

Which of the following is an argumentative strategy used by the television in response to the drug manufacturer?
(A) Indicated that the reason the drug manufacturer offers for relaxing the guideline conflicts with the manufacturer's presumed motive for presenting the image of a physician in the advertisement.

This gets at the very heart of the contradiction that the TV exec is pointing out. Presumably, the drug manufacturer wants a "doctor" in the ad to give credibility to his recommendation. But if, as the drug manufacturer suggests, most of the audience will realize it's not a doctor, then of course what that actor/doctor says loses most of its credibility. That's the big contradiction that the TV exec points outs. This is why (A) is correct.

(E) Questioning the ability of drug manufacturer to make any sweeping generalization about what many different members of the audience may think.

It's true that the drug manufacturer makes a sweeping generalization about the audience, but the TV exec doesn't argue against that in the least. The TV exec simply accepts that at face value, saying, "If that's true, then ..." The TV exec doesn't call that sweeping generalization into question at all --- rather, he says "Let's assume that sweeping generalization is true. Then, wouldn't such-and-such be true?" Rather than calling the sweeping generalization into question, the TV exec turns it around and makes his part and parcel of his counter-argument. This is why (E) is incorrect.

BTW, I don't know the source, but I don't really like this as a GMAT CR question. Among other things, all the CR questions in the GMAT OG, in addition to having a firm logical basis, are also grounded in what actually takes place in the real world. By contrast, the conversation of this CR question has to be taking place in some imaginary fantasy world. In our real world, having actors play doctors and thereby bamboozle the general public is absolutely standard practice throughout drug advertising --- it's not even the least bit controversial. The practice is essentially universal, and has never been challenged legally in any serious way. The only reason a TV executive would possible object would be moral --- I would argue that the TV executive who turns down a lucrative advertising contract for purely moral reasons is an entity slightly more fictional than Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy.

Does all this make sense?

Mike