It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 19:31

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Television executives recently announced that advertising

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

Television executives recently announced that advertising [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2005, 14:01
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 349

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 1

Location: USA

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2005, 14:34
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.

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1705

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2005, 14:51
Darth_McDaddy wrote:
I feel that only choices C and E seem relevant, and I will choose E.......Thus E.

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

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2005, 15:13
E is the best here.

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 477

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2005, 16:00
IMO D is the only choice that has any chance, everything else looks like a long shot.
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 716

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2005, 17:17
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.

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2005, 06:07
i am hesitant between D & E

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

Location: CA, USA

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2005, 20:16
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.

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 477

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2005, 17:05
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.
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 25

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2005, 10:27
E because increase in the number of viewers implies benefits from
advertising and hence worth to spend more on it

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2005, 18:47
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 [the implicit logic was that the "increase" in cost of advertising is passed on to the consumer via the "increase" in price of product. Therefore advertising time will be no harder to sell next fall than it was last fall]

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.

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2005, 05:59
Any thoughts on my comments?

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2005, 22:15
Bump...

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

11 Aug 2005, 22:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Television executives recently announced that advertising

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.