The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertisi

Question

The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertising revenue the show generates. The television network Vidnet's most popular show,  Starlight , currently earns the network's highest profits, but next year, because of unavoidable increases in production costs, its profits are projected to fall to below the average for Vidnet shows. Therefore, Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if it replaced  Starlight  with a show of average popularity and production costs.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) The average profits of Vidnet shows have increased in each of the last three years.

(B) Shows that occupy time slots immediately before and after very popular shows tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would.

(C)  Starlight  currently has the highest production costs of all Vidnet shows.

(D) Last year Vidnet lost money on a weekly show that was substantially similar to  Starlight  and was broadcast on a different day from  Starlight .

(E) Even if, as a result of increased production costs,  Starlight  becomes less profitable than the average for Vidnet shows, it will still be more profitable than the average for television shows of all networks combined.

sayantanc2k · Accepted Answer

Responding to a PM:

premise: X causes Y
conclusion: since Y is not desired, stop X.

weakening sentence: X causes Z, which is desired.

Almost any CR problem can be simplified in these lines.

BUT you have to still go through all the options to ensure there is no better Z - so POE is ultimately required.

chetan2u · Answer

The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertising revenue the show generates. The television network Vidnet's most popular show,  Starlight , currently earns the network's highest profits, but next year, because of unavoidable increases in production costs, its profits are projected to fall to below the average for Vidnet shows. Therefore, Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if it replaced  Starlight  with a show of average popularity and production costs.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The average profits of Vidnet shows have increased in each of the last three years.
  We are concerned with effect of starlight on vidnets profits.. Out of scope

B. Shows that occupy time slots immediately before and after very popular shows tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would.
 CORRECT The argument does not talk of popularity falling..
so popularity of starlight will remain high and as per the choice the neighbouring shows too get benegited by this. But if it is replaced the profit from those two shows will also fall..
Reason for continuing with STARLIGHT

C.  Starlight  currently has the highest production costs of all Vidnet shows.
  It can strengthen but does not weaken at any cost..

D. Last year Vidnet lost money on a weekly show that was substantially similar to  Starlight  and was broadcast on a different day from  Starlight .
  Does not talk of the argument

E. Even if, as a result of increased production costs,  Starlight  becomes less profitable than the average for Vidnet shows, it will still be more profitable than the average for television shows of all networks combined. 
  Could be a PREFERRED wrong choice..
we are talking of the profits within the Vidnet's shows... so OUT of scope

B

abrakadabra21 · Answer

The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertising revenue the show generates. The television network Vidnet's most popular show, Starlight, currently earns the network's highest profits, but next year, because of unavoidable increases in production costs, its profits are projected to fall to below the average for Vidnet shows. Therefore, Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if it replaced Starlight with a show of average popularity and production costs.

More viewers directly proportional to advertising revenue. 
Vidnet earns hightest profit = (revenue - expenses)
revenue could be higher because of advertising or other factors.

Vidnet would not earn greater profits overall if it replaced Starlight with a show of average popularity and production costs.
1> if it doesnt not set off loss by popularity from prodn cost. 
2> ad revenue reduces drastically

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The average profits of Vidnet shows have increased in each of the last three years.  does not address issue in our hand.

B. Shows that occupy time slots immediately before and after very popular shows tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would. losses would be more in that case so correct.

E. Even if, as a result of increased production costs, Starlight becomes less profitable than the average for Vidnet shows, it will still be more profitable than  the average for television shows  of all networks combined.

law258 · Answer

B. --> If this is true, then removing Starlight from the lineup, will have dire financial consequences for the company that will far exceed just losing the profits from the show alone. Thus, correct.

vijaisingh2001 · Answer

more viewers- greater ad revenue
starlight earns highest profit- direct advantage

because of increases in production cost, channel's profits are projected to fall to below the average shows

assumption is that only impact of starlight is those advertisements- weakener- starlight may contribute to the revenue  indirectly  such as those advertisers with starlight stick with other average programs too and they won't stick otherwise

conclusion- therefore v will earn greater profit if it replaced starlight with an average show

sisirkant · Answer

Ans is B. Took 2:59 mins to answer. Looks like it is too slow for this kind of questions.

ScottTargetTestPrep · Answer

The argument centers on the fact that while Starlight is Vidnet’s most popular show, it is not as profitable as the average Vidnet show. The conclusion drawn is that Vidnet could increase profits by replacing Starlight with a show of average popularity and average profitability.

As we will see, the correct answer choice weakens the argument by calling into question the conclusion that replacing Starlight would result in Vidnet’s earning greater profits overall.

(A) The average profits of Vidnet shows have increased in each of the last three years.

While this choice indicates that the profits Vidnet earns on shows are generally increasing, it does not negate the fact that the profits earned on Starlight are projected to decrease. Notice that we are told that Starlight “currently earns the network's highest profits, but next year, because of unavoidable increases in production costs, its profits are projected to fall to below the average for Vidnet shows.” So, choice (A) does not affect the argument.

(B) Shows that occupy time slots immediately before and after very popular shows tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would.

This choice does not mention either the show Starlight or profits. However, let’s not be quick to eliminate it by calling it “out of scope.” Rather, let’s see how some reasoning connects what it says to the argument.

The choice mentions “very popular shows,” and from the passage we know that Starlight is very popular. So, this choice is logically connected to the topic of the show Starlight.

Further, the choice mentions that shows before or after a very popular show have far more viewers than they otherwise would, and we know from the passage, “The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertising revenue the show generates.” So, this choice is also connected to revenue, and thus to profits.

As a result of these connections, choice B is essentially conveying the following:

“It is likely that the shows that occupy the time slots immediately before and after Starlight are much more profitable for Vidnet than they would be were Starlight not between them.”

Do we know for sure that those shows would be less profitable for Vidnet if Starlight were not between them? No. Does choice (B) give us reason to call into question the conclusion that replacing Starlight with a show of average popularity and profitability would result in an overall increase in profits for Vidnet? Absolutely, and the correct answer does not have to destroy the argument. It only has to call the conclusion into question. This answer definitely calls into question the conclusion.

So, this choice is our answer.

(C) Starlight currently has the highest production costs of all Vidnet shows.

The cost of producing Starlight is not the issue here. That Starlight is less profitable than other Vidnet shows has already been established, and information on the relative level of Starlight’s production costs does not change our understanding of the relative profitability of Starlight. So, what this choice says has no effect on the argument.

(D) Last year Vidnet lost money on a weekly show that was substantially similar to Starlight and was broadcast on a different day from Starlight.

That Vidnet lost money on a similar show does not affect the outcome of replacing Starlight with a less popular but more profitable show. So, what this choice says does not affect the argument.

(E) Even if, as a result of increased production costs, Starlight becomes less profitable than the average for Vidnet shows, it will still be more profitable than the average for television shows of all networks combined.

This choice is tempting, because in saying that Starlight would be more profitable than the average network television show, it indicates that Vidnet would earn greater-than-average profits by continuing to produce and air Starlight. However, the conclusion is not based on whether Starlight would be more profitable for Vidnet than the average television show is for the average network. It is based on the already established fact that Starlight’s profitability is projected to fall below the average for SHOWS AIRED BY VIDNET. Therefore, this choice does not affect the argument.

The correct answer is B.

septwibowo · Answer

Try to give explanation :

Conclusion  : To increase profit, change Starlight with average popularity and cost.
   Our job is to weaken, means that change Starlight with average popularity and cost STILL NOT increase the profit.

- Choice A and E irrelevant.
- Choice C doesn't affect anything.
- Choice B can be read as : So because of the show before and after Starlight (very popular show), we must change Starlight with this show!  No way.  The popularity of these shows still BIAS because they " tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would. ".   Clearly weaken the argument.

Wdyt?

JohnWycliffe · Answer

This question is the height of stupid.

The conclusion states that Vidnet would be more profitable if it replaced starlight with an average show,  not an average show from Vidnet.  Just an average show.

Well if E is true, if Starlight is more profitable than the average show, then replacing Starlight with an average show would make Vidnet less profitable.

"Therefore, Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if it replaced Starlight with a show of average popularity and production costs."

It's trying to make you assume that "a show of average popularity and production costs" points to an average Vidnet show, when the conclusion does not state this.

800Dreamer · Answer

Hi,  Bunuel

This is a prep ques. Can you please mark the same for this?

Bunuel · Answer

Done. Thank you for notifying.

akshat3010 · Answer

VeritasKarishma  Please help between B & E

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: More viewers means more revenue. Starlight , currently earns the network's highest profits, but next year, its profits will fall to below the average for Vidnet shows. Conclusion: Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if it replaced Starlight with a show of average popularity and production costs. We are talking about only Vidnet - its shows, its profit and its highest rated show. We conclude that Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if Starlight (whose profits are expected to fall below average) is replaced by an average profit show for next year. "Greater profits" than what? Than what it would earn if it did not replace Starlight next year. It makes sense, right? If you replace a below average profit element with average profit element, the total profit will be higher. After all, Starlight will earn less than avg profit next year. But we need to weaken this. We need to show that if you replace Starlight with some avg profit show, the overall profit next year may not be greater than if you keep Starlight for next year too. (A) The average profits of Vidnet shows have increased in each of the last three years. Doesn't matter. (B) Shows that occupy time slots immediately before and after very popular shows tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would. Correct. This tells us that Starlight's success spills over to the shows before and after it too. So if Starlight is taken off, not only that slot but profit on slots before and after it will suffer too. Then would you have more profit by keeping Starlight or replacing Starlight, we don't know. (C) Starlight currently has the highest production costs of all Vidnet shows. Irrelevant. (D) Last year Vidnet lost money on a weekly show that was substantially similar to Starlight and was broadcast on a different day from Starlight . Irrelevant. (E) Even if, as a result of increased production costs, Starlight becomes less profitable than the average for Vidnet shows, it will still be more profitable than the average for television shows of all networks combined. This is irrelevant too. Note that we are comparing "Vidnet's profits without Starlight next year" with "Vidnet's profits with Starlight next year". Whether Vidnet's shows are more profitable than those of other networks is irrelevant. Answer (B) Discussion on Weaken Questions: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k

krndatta · Answer

KarishmaB

Can you please elaborate about option D? 
How is this option irrelevant? 
Vidnet broadcast a show similar to Starlight. They lost money on the replaced show. 
Doesn't this weaken the conclusion? 
Please evaluate where am I going wrong with my reasoning?

Thanks

KarishmaB · Answer

Last year a show similar to Starlight saw losses. But Starlight has been doing very well and earns the highest profit. Though the two shows may have been similar, their fates have been very different. We don't know why. Perhaps the cast of Starlight has caught viewer fancy. Or perhaps the writer has got the formula just right - whatever. 
In any case, we know that next year Starlight will give below average profits because costs will increase substantially. The popularity may still stay the same but the profits will take a plunge. So we are saying that let's replace Starlight by some average profit show so that profitability does not suffer a lot.
We need to weaken it i.e. we need to show that replacing Starlight is not a good idea and the channel will suffer for it.

What will happen with regard to Starlight next year (revenue, cost, profit etc) has nothing to do with the similar show of last year. In fact, if anything, if a similar show had losses last year, we are making a case that Starlight might show losses too and hence replacing it is a good idea. But we want to say that replacing it is not a good idea. 
Hence (D) is not correct.

krndatta · Answer

KarishmaB 
Okay, So can we say that this option is strengthening the conclusion? 
They showed a similar show to Starlight, and the similar show lost money. So it makes sense to replace Starlight?

Thanks

KarishmaB · Answer

No, it isn't. The fate of Starlight has been very different from the fate of this show. Note that Starlight continues to be popular. Only its production cost is increasing. There is no connection between this show of the past and Starlight, even if they are similar. As I said before, something worked for Starlight, may be a brilliant cast, may be an amazing story that the other show did not have. We don't know how they were similar. 
In any case, it does not strengthen our conclusion. All I mean is that if we were required to place it on one side or the other - weakener or strengthener, it will be better placed on strengthener side, though it is actually irrelevant. Hence, we know for sure that it is certainly not a weakener.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertising revenue the show generates. Fact
The television network Vidnet's most popular show, Starlight, currently earns the network's highest profits, but next year, because of unavoidable increases in production costs, its profits are projected to fall to below the average for Vidnet shows. Opinion/Premise 
Therefore, Vidnet would earn greater profits overall if it replaced Starlight with a show of average popularity and production costs. - Conclusion

The conclusion here is that Vidnet (V) would earn "greater profits overall" if it replaced Starlight (S) with a show of average popularity because V's costs are increasing.

What if the popularity of that show has a ripple effect in terms of the channel's popularity and advertisement revenue for other shows as well?

Option Elimination -

(A) The average profits of Vidnet shows have increased in each of the last three years. - Our scope is limited to weakening "Vidnet (V) would earn "greater profits overall" if it replaced Starlight (S) with a show of average popularity." This is out of scope.

(B) Shows that occupy time slots immediately before and after very popular shows tend to have far more viewers that they otherwise would. - it makes sense. The "overall profits increase" is questionable. ok

(C) Starlight currently has the highest production costs of all Vidnet shows. - We already know from the argument that S's costs are increasing. Distortion.

(D) Last year Vidnet lost money on a weekly show that was substantially similar to Starlight and was broadcast on a different day from Starlight. - Does it connect to our scope here, which is weakening "Vidnet (V) would earn "greater profits overall" if it replaced Starlight (S) with a show of average popularity." This is out of scope.

(E) Even if, as a result of increased production costs, Starlight becomes less profitable than the average for Vidnet shows, it will still be more profitable than the average for television shows of all networks combined. - our scope has nothing to do with the "average for television shows of all networks combined." Out of scope.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertisi

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

The more viewers a television show attracts, the greater the advertisi

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