Finster27 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
Competition Mode Question
The founders of a new company believe they have developed a new standard of DVD that will display movies at far higher fidelity than any other existing standard. While they recognize that the benefits of the new technology may not be sufficient to induce the entire market to adopt the new player and disc formats, they predict that format will be worth the cost of adoption in commercial venues that show movies on large screens, where the improvement in quality would be quite noticeable.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn above?
A. The brand reputation of the current technology for movie filming is so strong that it is unlikely to be displaced in the near future for home viewing.
B. Sound quality is important to commercial venues that show movies on large screens, and the sound quality of movies on the new technology would not be improved.
C. The cost of the new system is high and would take even a major commercial venue several months to offset with improved business.
D. Commercial venues can adopt the new technology easily only if the movies they want to show are available on the new disc format.
E. Patrons of commercial venues that show movies on large screens may not appreciate the quality of the new format until they see it in person.
Official Explanation
Reading the question: we get a plan, and we have to choose what will most weaken the idea that the plan will work.
Creating a filter: the correct answer is likely not just to undermine the conclusion, but the logic of the argument. That involves quality, the new player and format, and large screens. The argument says that the new player and format are worth it because of the quality benefit on the large screens. The best weakener of this argument as a whole is likely to weaken that specific connection. We look for such a format-quality-screen weakener in the answer choices.
Applying the filter: (A) doesn't mention anything we're looking for. (B) doesn't, because "quality" is about sound quality. So (A) and (B) are out. (C) doesn't pertain to the connection we're interested in. Moreover, we're not expected to believe that there is a low cost to installation, but rather that the installation will be worth the cost, and maybe recouping in several months is not so bad. (D) is better; if movies aren't available in the new format, then improved visual quality might not merit switching to the new format. (D) is objectively superior because it alone undermines the logical connection in the argument between improved visual quality and being worth the switch. It does it somewhat indirectly, but since it hampers the conditions under which the switch can be adopted. (E) is not necessarily a problem for the argument.
The correct answer is (D). Bunuel ,
VeritasKarishma Could you please help me out why option B is eliminated. Is it because it's not just sound quality we are looking upon ? And it can be any other quality like visual, rendering or something else which on being improved would be profitable for the commerical screens and thereby not serving as a weakener ?
Posted from my mobile deviceHere are my views on this question:
A new company believes that they have developed a new standard of DVD that will improve visual quality (make it better than all current formats)
They admit that the benefits of the new technology may not be sufficient to induce the entire market to adopt the new player and disc formats.
But they predict that format will be worth the cost of adoption in commercial venues that show movies on large screens, where the improvement in quality would be quite noticeable.
They say that in commercial venues with large screens, the improvement will be quite noticeable and hence, the returns will be worth the cost of adoption of new player format.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn above?
We need to say that the returns may not be worth the cost of adoption of the new tech.
A. The brand reputation of the current technology for movie filming is so strong that it is unlikely to be displaced in the near future for home viewing.
Home viewing is out of scope.
B. Sound quality is important to commercial venues that show movies on large screens, and the sound quality of movies on the new technology would not be improved.
We are talking about visual quality. Even if the sound quality doesn't improve, improvement in visual quality could make a big difference. We don't need to improve every aspect of quality to make a difference.
Finster27C. The cost of the new system is high and would take even a major commercial venue several months to offset with improved business.
"Several months" doesn't seem like a very long time for big investments done by big businesses. Had it been "decades", I would have been more convinced. So the tech is expensive but it would be offset after several months but after that, there may be profits. The conclusion doesn't say that the offset will happen very quickly. So it doesn't seem to be much of a weakener to me.
D. Commercial venues can adopt the new technology easily only if the movies they want to show are available on the new disc format.
Now this certainly poses a problem. The commercial venue can adopt the new tech and put up the new player but what if the movie houses do not adopt it? The new company has already admitted that the entire market may not adopt the new format. Even if the quality improvement is worth the cost for large screens, what if the movies are not available in this format? Then the commercial venues may not be able to offset the cost because the movies they want to show are not available in the new format. It does weaken the conclusion.
E. Patrons of commercial venues that show movies on large screens may not appreciate the quality of the new format until they see it in person.
The commercial venues do have patrons. So people do come to watch movies. When they see the new format, they may come more often. Yes, the new format may not attract new patrons. But if current patrons come more often, the cost may get offset. Hence, it doesn't really weaken the argument.
Answer (D)