I noticed in one other CR question you used the negation method which "shaked" the argument. I cannot recall it being in a strengthen or inference / assumption question.
Can I negate A by saying: there is no other reason decades-old catch phrases remain in commercials apart from boost sales ? which strengthens the idea of the author?
And assume it is a potential answer, since it affects the claim ? thanks.
The main goal of advertising is to increase sales, and using particular catch phrases in ads is one way advertisers have pursued this goal. Many of these catch phrases were developed decades ago, but they continue to this day to boost sales, as is proven by the prevalence of commercials that still use them.
The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism that it
A. does not address the possibility that there are reasons decades-old catch phrases remain in commercials even if the catch phrases themselves do not continue to boost sales
B. fails to address the possibility that an advertising approach used in the past could still be effective simply because more-effective approaches have not yet been developed
C. illicitly infers that more effective catch-phrases will not be developed in the future merely from the fact that they have not yet been developed
D. illicitly infers that one of the primary means of pursuing advertising's main goal should not be reevaluated merely from the fact that that goal has persisted for decades
E. overlooks the possibility that particularly effective catch phrases remain in consumers' memories even when they have not appeared in commericals for years
Practice Exam 4 GMAT Focus