Since the new publisher took control, a news magazine’s covers have fe

Question

Since the new publisher took control, a news magazine’s covers have featured only models and movie stars. Previously, the covers had displayed only politicians, soldiers, and business leaders. A leading gossip columnist claimed that the changes made the magazine relevant again. However, many newspaper editorials disagreed and suggested that the new publisher is more interested in boosting sales than in reporting important news events.

Which of the following is an assumption necessary for the argument made by the gossip columnist’s opponents?

(A) The charitable activities of models and movie stars often focus public attention on pressing problems.
 
(B) Final authority for choosing the cover subject of the magazine lies with the publisher.
 
(C) A magazine can boost sales while highlighting the coverage of important world leaders.
 
(D) Some of the movie stars featured are now running for political office.
 
(E) Magazine issues with models or movie stars on the covers are purchased at a rate more than three times greater than is the case with issues featuring politicians on the covers.

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear kanusha First of all, let every one be advised: for this question, the OA = (B) . I just changed the key at the top of the thread to reflect this. Now, to find an assumption, let's use the negation test. First, let's look at (C) & (E) , your choices. (C) A magazine can boost sales while highlighting the coverage of important world leaders . Negation = A magazine can't possibly boost sales while highlighting the coverage of important world leaders --- those two activities are mutually exclusive . Well, the gossip columnist’s opponents' argument is: " the new publisher is more interested in boosting sales than in reporting important news events ." If those two activities, boosting sales and covering important world events, are mutually exclusive, then this could strengthen that argument --- the publisher is much more interested in the former activity, and so neglects the latter activity. (E) Magazine issues with models or movie stars on the covers are purchased at a rate more than three times greater than is the case with issues featuring politicians on the covers. Negation = Magazine issues with models or movie stars on the covers are purchased at a rate less than three times greater than is the case with issues featuring politicians on the covers . So, the rate is less than three times --- suppose it's 2.5 or 2.9 times --- that would not substantially change the argument. Any statement that makes some precise quantitative specification that is not demanded by the prompt cannot possibly be an assumption. As long as magazines with models or movie stars on the covers are purchased at some substantially higher rate than those with stodgy old world leaders on the cover, then the argument would hold. Even 30% more (i.e. 1.3 times) is a substantial difference in sales, and that's well below 3 times. (B) Final authority for choosing the cover subject of the magazine lies with the publisher. Negation = Final authority for choosing the cover subject of the magazine lies with someone other than the publisher ---- i.e., the publisher does not have final say over what's on the cover. Well, if the publisher doesn't really get to say what's on the cover, then there's absolutely no way we could divine the publisher's intentions or priorities from what appears on the cover. What appeared on the cover would reflect the priorities of whoever gets to determine that, not the publisher. The negation of this idea absolutely obliterates the conclusion of the argument ---- we could not determine anything about what the publisher likes or doesn't like, prefers or doesn't prefer, from a cover that not the publisher but someone else decides. Since negating this choice creates a devastating objection to the argument, that's a sign that this choice is the true assumption. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

amit2k9 · Answer

E is a strengthening answer choice.It clearly shows that the publisher is increasing sales by such tactics. If you negate the statement then the sales might be boosted not by 3x times but by 2x time or 1x times. Hence this statement does not crash the conclusion.

B negating this,means somebody else is responsible for the final decision. Publisher should not be blamed for that.This crashes the conclusion of the opponents of the gossip column person.

Thus B.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument presents the facts of an apparent change in a magazine's cover features since the new publisher took control. While a gossip columnist hailed the change, newspaper editorials disagreed and concluded that the publisher favored profit over reporting. The editorials are the opponents of the gossip columnist; since their conclusion is about the publisher’s desires, there must be an assumption connecting the publisher to the covers.

(A) This choice is irrelevant, as it is not connected to the conclusion. The activities of celebrities have nothing to do with the publisher’s interests.

(B) CORRECT.  Since the conclusion concerns the publisher’s desires based on the content of the magazine covers, the editorials have to assume that the publisher decides who is to be a cover subject. If not, there is no connection between the covers and the publisher’s interests.

(C) This choice is the opposite of a necessary assumption. For the editorials to conclude that the publisher prefers profits to reporting, they have to assume that the two are mutually exclusive.

(D) “Some” means “at least one,” so this is not a powerful statement in any direction. Furthermore, even if several such stars were running for political office, it is not at all necessary to assume that to conclude that the publisher was more interested in profits.

(E) This choice is not correct. While it is true that the editorials must assume model and movie star covers are likely to sell more copies, it does not have to be assumed that such covers will result in the sale of triple the number of copies, or any other specific number.

IanStewart · Answer

the OA is given as B.

C is not the right answer here; the opponents' argument does not assume that you can boost sales while also reporting world events. If I invent a (slightly ridiculous) argument which parallels that in the original question: "You're spending a lot of time preparing for the GMAT. Therefore you're more interested in obtaining a good GMAT score than you are in becoming an astronaut", I'm in no way assuming that it's possible to do both things at once. The same is true of the argument in the question above.

kanusha · Answer

Sir, my answer is either E or C
E... becz by new mazigne sales increased to 3 times than with political matters, no new information
C... that new information that about world leaders,but we are only taking about models, stars.... great leaders may be even business or politicans
so,pls explain... with reason

nitin6305 · Answer

My question here is :

The argument's conclusion, for which we have to look for an assumption, is , "many newspaper editorials disagreed and
suggested that the new publisher is more interested in boosting sales than in reporting important news events."
How choice B is necessary? The publisher may not be the final authority and still can be interested in boosting sales! Can someone please help?

DmitryFarber · Answer

Careful--we aren't looking to strengthen or weaken here. We're looking for something that needs to be true for the argument to work. Making C false ("A magazine cannot boost sales while highlighting coverage of world leaders.") wouldn't be a problem for the argument. In fact, it might even strengthen it by suggesting that boosting sales is entirely divorced from reporting important events.

However, the argument needs B to survive. If the publisher doesn't get to choose the cover, then it doesn't make sense to use the cover to determine the publisher's motives.

However, the argument needs B to survive. If the publisher doesn't get to choose the cover, then it doesn't make sense to use the cover to determine the publisher's motives.

TorchLake · Answer

Could someone help me understand why it could not also be E?

Don't you need to assume that featuring "models and movie stars" on the cover actual increases sales?

ynk · Answer

It does state that featuring "models and movie stars" on the cover actual increases sales,BUT the option is directly comparing it as three times which is not stated and cannot be assumed so diectly.i mean CR answers are never too direct.they go easy on wordings.

hope that helps.

DmitryFarber · Answer

Careful, ynk. We don't want to say something "can't be assumed" or we risk confusing this with an inference question. It's true that if we know that models and movie stars boost sales, we can't infer that they necessarily triple sales. However, we're not looking for an inference. We're looking for something needed that's missing from the argument.

So . . . looking back at the argument, are we ever told that models and movie stars boost sales? Actually, no. Some people think the new covers are meant to increase sales, but a) we don't know if sales actually  have  increased, and b) even if we did know that, we wouldn't know if it was  because  of the new covers. So we don't know if these covers actually do boost sales, and that seems like an important missing piece.

So why isn't E the answer. First, it's more specific than needed. We don't need to know that sales will specifically triple. We'd just like to know that they will go up. E goes further than is necessary. (This is the point I think you were going for, ynk.) Additionally, we don't even need to know that sales will go up with the new covers. We just need to know that the publisher  thinks  they will. Imagine that I got a mohawk and someone said "He just wants people to think he's young and hip." Do we need to know that a mohawk will make me look young and hip? No--we just need to know that that's what I  think  will happen.

Does that help? Let me know if I can clarify.

ChiGMAT · Answer

Assumption is the implied or hidden premise and so has to be true. In this question, those who disagreed did so by suggesting that the new publisher was more interested in boosting sales than in reporting important news events.

Keeping that in mind, if we look at the options:

• The charitable activities of models and movie stars often focus public attention on pressing problems. - Does not have to be true and charitable activities is out of scope.

• Final authority for choosing the cover subject of the magazine lies with the publisher. - Negating this option: "Final authority for choosing the cover subject of the magazine does not lie with the publisher". Now, if it DOES NOT lie with the publisher, then it weakens the argument/stand of those who disagree. So, this one is the answer. (remember, assumption must be true!)

• A magazine can boost sales while highlighting the coverage of important world leaders. - Out of scope

• Some of the movie stars featured are now running for political office. - Out of scope

• Magazine issues with models or movie stars on the covers are purchased at a rate more than three times greater than is the case with issues featuring politicians on the covers. - Although this option can strengthen the argument, it does not necessarily have to be true and so cannot be the assumption.

Hope this helps

Ruchita1907 · Answer

I think this is E... 
They asked the assumption which is of columnist opponents'-- and that is that new publisher is interested in boosting sales ... 
B is right but E is more apt..

sayantanc2k · Answer

For assumption and inference type questions, the right answer should satisfy the "MUST be true" criterion.

For assumption type questions, if the option is not true then the argument should break down.

Now option E states a specific figure of 3 times, and that ruins this option. If this figure were not 3 times (say 2 times, 4 times, 10 times or 100 times), then also the argument would hold. Hence it is NOT a mandatory bridge that magazines with movie-star covers sell exactly 3 times more than those with politician-covers. Therefore option E is not an assumption.

keats · Answer

sayantanc2k  Can you throw light on option C. Probably by negating the choice.

I think of the case as below. If you can affirm my reasoning!
  Conclusion   - the new publisher is more interested in boosting sales than in reporting important news events
  Option C   - A magazine can boost sales while highlighting the coverage of important world leaders
  Negated Option C   - A magazine   cannot   boost sales while highlighting the coverage of important world leaders
So, may be the magazine can boost sales while highlighting the coverage of models or movie stars. This, at best, will support the conclusion instead of breaking the conclusion.

Clearly, C cannot be an assumption.

sayantanc2k · Answer

I would say option C is a weakening statement. If the photos of world leaders boost sales of the magazine, then changing the same is not required to boost sales - the sales is already high because the magazine already features photos of world leaders on the cover. Thus the intent of the publisher for changing the cover is probably NOT boosting of sales.

krndatta · Answer

KarishmaB  ma'am,

When we negate option E. 
We get that Magazine issues are purchased at a rate less than 3 times...

Doesn't this weaken our conclusion because the sales are now low. So manager is interested in boosting sales.

Please share your two cents.

KarishmaB · Answer

Less than 3 times can be 2 times or 1.5 times etc. That would still be a boost in the sales so our conclusion will still hold.

Note that an option giving a quantitative figure that is not discussed in the argument will not work as an assumption. We would have considered it seriously if the argument had told us: "the new publisher is more interested in boosting sales more than 3 times its previous value than in reporting ..."
An assumption is what SHOULD BE TRUE for our conclusion to hold. Can we say that that it must be true that magazines with models on covers sell at least 3 times more? No. Magazines with models on covers could be selling 2 times more and still our argument works.

thelastskybender · Answer

KarishmaB 
I understand that negation of B breaks the conclusion, but isn't this already mentioned in the argument? : "Since the new publisher  took control , a news magazine’s covers have featured only models and movie stars"

KarishmaB · Answer

You are mixing correlation and causation - the argument gives us correlation. But the assumption gives us causation.

All the argument tells us is that since the new publisher came, the cover has featured models only. But does this mean that the publisher made this happen? No. 
What if the editor-in-chief decides the cover and the publisher is not involved in the decision at all. The argument does not say that the publisher caused the change. The fact is that the two things happened together but what caused it, we are not given.

But the gossip columnist’s opponents are claiming "the new publisher is more interested in boosting sales than in reporting important news events"
They are assuming that the new publisher is the one deciding the cover. That he is the cause of the change.

Hence (B) is an assumption.

Since the new publisher took control, a news magazine’s covers have fe

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Since the new publisher took control, a news magazine’s covers have fe

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards