Television executives recently announced that advertising

Question

Television executives recently announced that advertising time on television will cost 10 to 15 percent more next fall than it cost last fall. The executives argued that in spite of this increase, advertisers will continue to profit from television advertising, and so advertising time will be no harder to sell next fall than it was last fall.

Which one of the following, if true, would most support the television executives' arguement?

A) Most costs of production and distribution of products typically advertised on television are expected to rise 3 to 7 percent in the next year
B) The sytem for rating the size of the audience watching any given television advertisement will change next fall
C) Next fall advertising time on telelvision will no longer be available in blocks smaller than 30 seconds
D) The amount of television advertising time purchased by providers of services is increasing.
E) A recent survey has shown that the average number of hours people spend watching television is increasing at the rate of 2 percent every 2 months.

Darth_McDaddy · Answer

I feel that only choices C and E seem relevant, and I will choose E.

To solve this CR, we are required to choose the answer choice that best supports the claim that "in spite of this increase, advertisers will continue to profit from television advertising"

Choice A neither supports not weakens the argument made by the TV executives.
Choice B is irrelevant.
Choice D is out, because it does not address the executive's claim.

Choice C - If TV spots less than 30 seconds are not available, then advertiser's will be spending more on ads, and I am not sure, whether the TV executives are referring to this increase in spending. As I am probably making an unstated assumption, lets skip this choice.

Choice E is the safest. If the number of people watching TV is increasing, then it will mean that, advertisers are reaching a larger audience. Thus when compared to last year, an advertiser will be paying a little less per member of the audience next year (despite the increase), when compared to the amount per audience member last year. I did a bit of math, to support my argument. 
If there were 100 members watching TV programs last fall, then the rate of increase will result in 126 members watching TV programs, by the start of next fall, when the advertisers are only paying 110 to 115% of what they spent last year.

Thus E.

HIMALAYA · Answer

E. agree with you...............

Bhai · Answer

E is the best here.

ranga41 · Answer

IMO  D  is the only choice that has any chance, everything else looks like a long shot.

riteshgupta1 · Answer

The only relevent choices are D and E.

d can be easily refuted. The time is being purchased by service providers, but how are they going to profit from it...The advertisers are spending money but this choice does not show any return over their investment.

E is directlt relevent. E says, the advertisement is reaching more and more poeple who are the consumers... If the population of people watching tv is increasing, so would be the profits of advertisers.

E is my choice.

gotoknow3 · Answer

i am hesitant between D & E

qpoo · Answer

E provide more direct support for the point that more expensive advertisement charges will not deter advertisers to buy air time.
E explains it logically: people are watching more and more TV, therefore, TV ads as a way to reach consumers is become more and more important - thus spending some more on ads is well justified.

In contrast,

 D) The amount of television advertising time purchased by providers of services is increasing. 

mentions the fact that currently the advertising time is selling well, but we don't know why - it could be a short-time phenomenon that will disapperar before next fall.

ranga41 · Answer

IMO D again though the answer looks too direct to be right, E assumes just because people watch TV for longer time the advertisers will pay more.

sravna · Answer

E because increase in the number of viewers implies benefits from
advertising and hence worth to spend more on it

gmataquaguy · Answer

The OA is E. If the AC "A" were paraphrased as follows, wouldnt it strengthen the argument:

The cost of products typically advertised on telelvison are expected to rise 3 to 5% in the next year. 

I mis-read AC A as the aforementioned. Do you all think that if AC A was phrased as above it would strenghten the argument  

Let me know what you guys think. 

OA is E. 

Darth, i dunno if i agree with your math though. 126 > 110 therefore it strengthens.

gmataquaguy · Answer

Any thoughts on my comments?

gmataquaguy · Answer

Bump...

Television executives recently announced that advertising

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