While handsets get hyped, a typical U.S. consumer watches more than 5

Question

While handsets get hyped, a typical U.S. consumer watches more than 5 hours of TV a day, according to Nielsen, and even younger adults from 18 to 24 years of age—the supposed digital generation—spend 3 hours and 30 minutes watching TV daily compared to only 49 minutes on the Web and 20 minutes on mobile phones. Therefore, since most media is still consumed through TV, the claims that TV as a medium for advertising has lost some importance are certainly incorrect.

Which of the following must be true for the above argument to hold?

A. The number of advertisements that can be shown per unit of time spent is not significantly greater in TVs than in other mediums.

B. The impact of an advertisement served on a medium is directly proportional to the amount of time the advertisement is displayed/shown.

C. The importance of a medium of advertisement does not depend only on the time spent by the consumers on that medium.

D. Most of the time spent watching TV these days is not spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content.

E. None of the advertisers have recently significantly reduced the amount they spent on advertising on TV.

suchita2409 · Answer

Conclusion:
The claims that TV as a medium for advertising has lost some importance are certainly incorrect.

A. The number of advertisements that can be shown per unit of time spent is not significantly greater in TVs than in other mediums.

Incorrect.
This option says that no. of ads per unit time for other media and TV are same .
It does not affect the claim that TV s are less popular for ads.

B. The impact of an advertisement served on a medium is directly proportional to the amount of time the advertisement is displayed/shown.
Incorrect
This options talks about the impact made by ads but talks nothing to make the claim false .

C. The importance of a medium of advertisement does not depend only on the time spent by the consumers on that medium.

Incorrect
This option does talk about the medium but does not give us anything about the factors on which the importance depends.
Its unable to join the link -why TV's are still popular as an advertising medium.
 
D. Most of the time spent watching TV these days is not spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content.
Correct.
This is the link what we are talking about.When we see TV we are not allowed to skip the content, giving enough time for ads and making them popular for advertising medium.

E. None of the advertisers have recently significantly reduced the amount they spent on advertising on TV.
Incorrect.
The reduction in the amount spent by the advertises does not corelates with making TV less popular.

SO D it is.

Posted from my mobile device

stne · Answer

So we already know more media is being consumed through TV than through web. Hence TV as a medium for advertisement has lost potential is incorrect. We have to find support for this argument.

A. Kind of neutral statement, saying per unit time more advertisement cannot be shown on TV, hence it is very important for people to watch more TV for the success of advertisements on TV. But what if people are watching recorded TV instead of live TV? Then they can skip the advertisement, hence even if people are watching more TV that does not mean, advertisements are achieving success. INCORRECT.

B. Does NOT support our argument as we only know that more TV is being watched we do NOT know in what medium TV or Web, advertisement is shown for a longer duration. INCORRECT.

C. Goes against the premise itself hence weakens instead of strengthening. Does not support. INCORRECT.

D. So now we know that most of the TV watching is  NOT  spent on watching recorded shows, hence there is no way to skip the advertisements. If people were watching recorded television then even though they were watching more television, advertisements were not achieving success as people could skip the advertisements. This option negates the possibility of recorded shows hence lends support to the argument. BEST option. CORRECT.

E. This doesn't mean advertisement has  NOT  lost its potential, advertisers could be lingering on for a few more days hoping that the scenario could reverse or maybe they are bound by contract and have to stick on for a month, year, etc. Not a foolproof support:  INCORRECT.

Ans- D

Hope it's clear.

sssanskaar · Answer

Straight answer - option D.

Option E is incorrect because it deals with the "amount the advertisers spend on advertisings in TV" and not the "number of advertisings".

siddhantvarma · Answer

Argument: Claims about TV losing importance as an advertising medium are incorrect => Advertisements are still important
The author cites evidence such as how much time a certain age group spend on various mediums. She says that most media consumption still happens through TV.

We can see an inherent assumption here that the  time spent watching TV  translates directly into  effective advertising .  
 However, the mere time spent on TV doesn’t necessarily imply advertising effectiveness if viewers are able to skip ads, as they can with recorded shows or on-demand content.

It's fine even if we can't deduce the above assumption as a part of the pre-thinking process, we can still analyse all answer choices and see which fits the best by negating them. This question works well with negating the answer choices. We'll negate each answer choice and see on negating does it point us towards "advertisements are important" or "advertisements are not important". The argument says "Advertisements are still important" and we need to break the conclusion so on negating we should get "advertisements may not be still important.

A. The number of advertisements that can be shown per unit of time spent is not significantly greater in TVs than in other mediums. 
On negating, we get: "The number of advertisements that can be shown per unit of time spent is significantly greater in TVs than in other mediums. "  
This tells us advertisements are still important and can also be tied back to the evidence the author cited. This holds the conclusion,   eliminate A.

B. The impact of an advertisement served on a medium is directly proportional to the amount of time the advertisement is displayed/shown. 
On negating, we get: "The impact of an advertisement served on a medium is not directly proportional to the amount of time the advertisement is displayed/shown."
This tells us that advertisements may not be still important and it attacks the evidence cited by the author.   Let's keep B for now.

C. The importance of a medium of advertisement does not depend only on the time spent by the consumers on that medium. 
On negating we get: "The importance of a medium of advertisement does depend only on the time spent by the consumers on that medium. "  
This means advertisements are still important and the evidence cited by the author backs it. It holds the conclusion,   so rule out C.

D. Most of the time spent watching TV these days is not spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content. 
On negating we get: "Most of the time spent watching TV these days is spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content. " 
This means that even when the evidence holds true, the conclusion doesn't hold since users can skip content so advertisements may be losing importance. It directly attacks the conclusion and the validity of evidence linked to it,   let's hold onto D.

This is the correct answer. For TV to be considered an important advertising medium, viewers must actually be exposed to the advertisements. If most TV viewing involved skipping ads (e.g., using DVRs or watching recorded content), then the amount of time spent watching TV would not necessarily translate into effective advertising time. This option addresses a key assumption that viewers are actually watching live TV, where they are more likely to see advertisements.
 E. None of the advertisers have recently significantly reduced the amount they spent on advertising on TV. 
On negating, we get: "Most of the advertisers have recently significantly reduced the amount they spent on advertising on TV."
This also attacks the conclusion, if the advertisers have reduced the amount they spend on advertising, their importance might have gone down.   Okay, let's hold onto this as well.

Now between (E), (B) and (D), we can easily eliminate (E) since it talks about "advertisers" and not the consumers of the media. Advertisers could have budget cuts or other reasons to mitigate their spending. Or in fact, they could be getting huge returns from advertisements already and might want to improve their profits, in which case the conclusion actually holds true. In any scenario, (E) is definitely not a relevant choice so   let's eliminate (E).

Now between (B) and (D), (B) might seem relevant, but the argument is about the total time spent on TV versus other media, not the time individual ads are displayed. Additionally, (B) would require that the impact of TV ads directly depends on how long they are displayed, which is not explicitly part of the argument.
On the other hand (D) addresses the assumption that TV viewing time translates into advertising exposure, which is crucial for the argument to hold. (D) directly attacks the evidence and the conclusion tied to it.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D)

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  KarishmaB   MartyMurray   DmitryFarber

D. Most of the time spent watching TV these days is not spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content.

I understand how A, B, C, E are wrong but not sure (D) is the correct one.

My reasoning is: 
If we negate (D) we get:  Most of the time spent watching TV these days is spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content  which also means that  Some of the time spent watching TV these days is  not  spent on watching recorded shows which allows skipping of content  so the conclusion can still hold true right?

Am I wrong due to either of these reasons? 
1. I made an unwarranted assumption because it is not necessary that  "some"  of the time will be spent on watching advertisements only and conclusion in that case might be destroyed
2. "Some" can be very small to ignore so conclusion might not hold true

Please help me with this option.

KarishmaB · Answer

Most could mean 100% also so its negation is not some. It is 'not most' i.e. 50% or less. 
Also, even if say 20% time in spent in watching non-recorded content, still our conclusion can hold.

Conclusion: TV as a medium for advertising has lost some importance are certainly incorrect.

The conclusion only claims "has lost some importance," not that it has lost all importance.

egmat · Answer

Your negation is perfect! Let me show you why D still breaks the argument.

The Key Issue: "Some" Has No Minimum 
You're right that when we negate D, we get "most time IS spent on recorded/skippable shows," which implies "some time is NOT."

But here's  the trap :  "some" could mean 1% or 10%

Let's test with numbers: 
- Americans watch  5 hours  of TV daily
- If MOST (say  90% ) is recorded/skippable → only  30 minutes  of actual ad exposure
- Compare to:  49 min  on web +  20 min  on mobile =  69 minutes

Suddenly TV has LESS ad exposure time than digital! The conclusion that "TV advertising hasn't lost importance"  collapses .

The Core Principle: 
The argument's conclusion is  STRONG : TV advertising is still important.

A strong conclusion needs strong support. If the very foundation of the argument (time spent = ad exposure) gets undercut for MOST of that time, then a tiny "some" isn't enough to rescue a strong conclusion.

Your instinct #2 was exactly right!   "Some" can be too small to matter. This is why D is necessary - without it, the entire premise about "5 hours of TV time" becomes meaningless for advertising purposes.

Quick Rule:   When an argument makes a strong claim based on quantity/proportion, any assumption protecting that quantity must ensure  ENOUGH  of it survives, not just "some."

Hope this helps!

While handsets get hyped, a typical U.S. consumer watches more than 5

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

While handsets get hyped, a typical U.S. consumer watches more than 5

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