A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for

Question

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

egmat · Answer

The correct answer is option E.

Understanding the passage 
- a famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising company
- Reason: For using an imitator (some other singer singing the original singer's song) in a commercial
- Result: advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials
-  Conclusion:  Ad costs will rise
- Rationale: famous singers' services cost more than services of imitators

Question Stem:  Find the assumption

Pre-Thinking 
Falsification Question: In what scenario would ad costs not increase?
Given that:
1. Because of the lawsuit, ad firms will stop using imitators to sing artists' songs in commercials
2. Singers/Artists charge more for their services than imitators

Falsification Condition: 
What if as a result of this lawsuit, the ad firms stop using songs in commercials?
Then, they would not have to pay singers at all, as they would not be using their songs. In such a case, the ad expenses would not rise. This would break the conclusion.

Assumption: The ad firms will continue to use songs by singers in their commercials.

Option Choice Analysis 
 (A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.
 
This would probably be the reason why imitators are used. But this will not explain why ad expenses will rise post lawsuit.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers. 
Not really relevant. The argument pertains to ad expenses, effectiveness of the commercials is out of the scope.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials. 
Actually not relevant. The same songs would not have been available even before the lawsuit (when costs were lower). So, this segment (songs that are unavailable) do not contribute to the rise in costs in anyway. Hence, not relevant.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers. 
This goes against the facts of the argument. We are already given that ad firms will stop using imitators in their commercials altogether (whether it is for imitating the singing or imitating the physical mannerism)

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials. 
In line with what we analyzed. Well known renditions of songs = well known imitation versions of the songs. Essentially, this option is telling us that the ad firms will continue to use imitations (renditions) of songs in their commercials. This corresponds to our pre-thinking analysis. Correct choice!

Hope this helps.

KarishmaB · Answer

No, we cannot say that. "If option (E) were not there, would (D) be correct" is not how CR works, at least not the official questions.

A singer sued an advertising company for using an imitator for his/her famous song and won.
Now advertising companies will not use imitators (else they will get sued)
Singers charge more than imitators.

Conclusion: Advertising costs will rise. 
To conclude that advertising cost will rise, we need to assume that the advertisers will use famous songs (with their original singers). What if advertisers stop using famous songs? Then they will not have to pay a lot of money to the famous singers of those songs.

Hence, (E) is our assumption.

What is an assumption?

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.

Irrelevant to whether advertising costs will rise.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.

Irrelevant to whether advertising costs will rise. This has impact on revenue generated through advertising but we are not discussing that at all. We are only talking about cost of advertising.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.

Irrelevant.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.

We are told that advertising firms will not use imitators in commercials now.

Answer (E)

lakshya14 · Answer

I'm getting confused with (E). If I negate it, it's getting in line with the conclusion rather than against it. If companies will not use imitators then prices will go high?

GMATNinja · Answer

You can evaluate (E) just by unpacking the argument itself.

The conclusion is that  advertising costs will rise.  Here's how the author reaches that conclusion:

Ad firms will stop using imitators to evoke famous singers' well-known renditions of songs in commercials. 
  Famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators. 
  Therefore, advertising costs will rise.

The unstated piece of this argument is that ad firms will go ahead and hire famous singers to sing their own well-known renditions:

Ad firms will stop using imitators to evoke famous singers' well-known renditions of songs in commercials. 
  Famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators. 
   Ad firms will replace imitators with the more costly famous singers they were imitating in the first place.  
  Therefore, advertising costs will rise.

If ad firms take the highlighted action, then certainly we can expect advertising costs to rise. But if ad firms DON'T take that action (i.e., if they do literally anything else with their budgets), then we can't accept the conclusion so easily. After all, we only know the relative difference in cost between famous singers and their imitators. We don't know the cost of any other type of advertising expense.

That's why this assumption is necessary for the conclusion to be logically valid.

Choice (E) recognizes that necessity, and lines up with our reasoning:

That's why it's the correct answer choice.

I hope this helps!

CEdward · Answer

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.

This weakens the argument…if most people cannot distinguish between a famous singer and a good imitator, then there’s no logical reason why a famous singer would be brought onboard for the advertisement.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.

The author doesn’t need to make an assumption about the EFFECTIVENESS of famous singers to conclude that it will cost more. E.g. Suppose they aren’t more effective, the advertising costs could still be high simply by virtue of the individual’s status

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials. X

OK, that’s nice. OUT.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers. X

This is silly. The conclusion is that costs will rise since famous singer’s services cost more…why would one need to assume that the firms will use imitators (who cost less)?

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

Correct. “Well-known” presumably means the song is presumably associated with some famous person…so that famous person would cost more

palaknayyar · Answer

GMATNinja  - what is the issue with C?

GMATNinja · Answer

We're looking for something that MUST be true in order to conclude that "advertising costs will rise." To reach this conclusion, the author argues that "famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators," so if you prevent imitators from performing, then advertisers will have to pay more to use the services of the famous singers.

So, does (C) HAVE to be true in order for the conclusion to hold? Take a look:
 
Hmm, there are a couple of issues here. First, it's unclear what "original versions of some well-known songs" really means -- are these the renditions by the famous people, or not? There's simply not enough information.

Second, does the argument REQUIRE it to be true that certain songs are unavailable? Not at all. Maybe some well-known songs are unavailable -- advertisers will still have to pay a premium for famous renditions of  other  songs. Or maybe every single song IS available -- guess what, advertisers will still have to pay more for famous renditions of those songs.

Because the argument can hold whether the information in (C) is true or not, (C) is not an assumption on which the argument is based.

Eliminate (C).

I hope that helps!

Paris75003 · Answer

Hi,

What confuses me about E is exactly what is defined by rendition?

I always thought that rendition means a performance played by someone who isn't the original performer i.e. a school rendition of Mozart.

If this is true, then we can say that immitators are going to continue to feature in these adds and then the costs might go up due to further law suits, for example. In this case I would say that E is going out of scope.

However, for me E can only be an answer if rendition means played by the original artist. In which case I feel that GMAT here is bending the definition of rendition.

Thanks

tutatu263 · Answer

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

Conclusion: advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song. - Who cares? This does not need to be true in order for us to reach the conclusion that ad costs will rise.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers. - Effectiveness here is not really the criteria because they were prev using Imitators. This can be either true or false, but the fact that they can be sued if they use imitators is good enough to reach conclusion.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials. - not relevant to the original singers vs imitators argument.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers. - this is a trap now talking about physical mannerisms, change of topic from imitator's rendition of a famous song.

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

I wanted to choose this but i rejected this because it is not said that renditions belong to this famous singer only. It is not said that this rendition which is talked about here means 'rendition of the famous singer in passage'. How can we assume so? please clarify

scrantonstrangler · Answer

Can someone please explain why A is wrong? 
A says that most people will be unable to distinguish between the imitator and the singer. And the proposal is to ban the firm from using imitator. Given that imitators are cheaper than original singers and the proposal is to ban the former, advertising firms will be left with original singers only and thus cost will rise. Is 'A' a strengthener then?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

If we consider all the implications of (A), we could see it as a strengthener since it implies that advertisers have been able to get the value of a famous singer's rendition of a song without paying famous singer rates and now will no longer be able to do so. The implications of those facts are that advertisers have lost a relatively low-cost option for creating effective commercials and that therefore advertising costs may rise.

That story is a little more extended than the support we would see for a correct answer to a GMAT CR question, but still, we could decide that choice (A) is a strengthener for that reason.

At the same time, this question is not a Strengthen question. It's an Assumption question. So, even if we consider (A) a strengthener, it's still not the correct answer since it's not an assumption upon which the conclusion is based.

After all, it's not necessary to assume that most people are completely "unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song" as (A) says, to conclude that advertising costs will increase if advertisers are no longer able to use imitators to evoke famous singer renditions of songs. After all, even if people can tell the difference, the costs could increase if advertisers can no longer use imitated renditions to evoke the original renditions and thus capture the attention of the audience at a relatively low cost.

scrantonstrangler · Answer

Thanks for the reply! This definitely clears it up for me

Posted from my mobile device

ArnauG · Answer

The given statement discusses a lawsuit where a famous singer won against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's rendition of a certain song. It concludes that advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials, and as a result, advertising costs will rise since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators. Let's evaluate each option to determine which assumption supports the conclusion:

(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer's rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.
This assumption does not directly support the conclusion. While it introduces the idea that people might have difficulty distinguishing between a famous singer and a good imitator, it does not establish a link to advertising firms stopping the use of imitators or the rise in advertising costs.

(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
This assumption supports the conclusion. If commercials using famous singers are generally more effective than commercials using imitators, it provides a reason for advertising firms to stop using imitators. As a result, they would need to hire famous singers instead, leading to higher advertising costs.

(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
This assumption is unrelated to the conclusion. While it discusses the availability of original versions of well-known songs, it does not provide any direct connection to advertising firms using imitators or the rise in advertising costs.

(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
This assumption weakens the conclusion. If advertising firms continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers, it undermines the claim that advertising firms will stop using imitators altogether. This suggests that the rise in advertising costs due to hiring famous singers may not be a certain outcome.

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.
This assumption supports the conclusion. If the advertising industry is expected to use well-known renditions of songs in commercials, it strengthens the claim that advertising firms will need to hire famous singers instead of imitators. This supports the conclusion that advertising costs will rise due to the higher expenses associated with hiring famous singers.

The conclusion provided in the statement is based on the assumption that the advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials (option E). This assumption supports the claim that advertising firms will stop using imitators and hire famous singers instead, leading to higher advertising costs. The other options either do not support the conclusion or introduce conflicting assumptions.

tsraeroshad · Answer

Don't understand how E is correct. Negating it doesn't do much to the argument.
Please explain.

GMATNinja · Answer

The advertising firms are apparently using non-famous (and therefore cheaper) singers to perform well-known renditions by famous singers. But if the firms are going to get sued every time they do so, then maybe they'll have to suck it up and pay the famous singers to perform their well-known renditions.

Or, the firms could just say, "Screw it, let's stop using well-known renditions of songs in our commercials. That way, we don't need to shell out big money to pay for these famous singers!" The assumption in (E) is needed to eliminate that possibility, which would break the argument.

I hope that helps!

stackskillz · Answer

This is the solution I came up with:

Conc: Advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

(A)  Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song  - Answers the question - "Can people differentiate between original/imitated rendition?" This is probably a reason why advertising companyies used imitators before they got sued. Does it explain why the cost will rise? Not really.  Drop

(B)  Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.  - Provides another benefit of using original renditions rather than imitiated ones. But it doesn't explain why the cost should rise, i.e. the companies can decide to be innovative and use graphics more effectively rather than renditions of songs.  Drop

(C)  The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.  - Do these well-known songs constitute the entire seletion range for the advertisers. Not really. We can assume advertisers can use other renditions too, since we're not told about any kind of limitations on the use of songs (other than the copyright issue). Negating this option doesn't help either, since it just ends up supporting the statement.  Drop

(D)  Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.  - Can this co-exist with the conclusion? Yup, a fair number of scenarios are possible where you use the original recorded rendition and mimic the famous singers using imitators. However, it doesn't explain why should the cost increase. We know it does, but why?  Drop

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

I wanted to choose this but i rejected this because it is not said that renditions belong to this famous singer only. It is not said that this rendition which is talked about here means 'rendition of the famous singer in passage'. How can we assume so? please clarify

mayo6499 · Answer

I have a doubt here. Do well-known renditions have to be from famous singers? Can a well-known rendition not be from a not-famous singer? (What I understand by renditions here is like a song cover. Some covers are pretty popular even if the singer isn't).
Option E says that
 
So I thought, well if they use a not-famous singer's rendition the costs may not necessarily rise and the conclusion does not logically follow. So I rejected option E. Where am I going wrong?

GMATNinja · Answer

A "rendition" of a song refers to a specific performance or recording of that song by a specific artist.

Yes, there can be a well-known rendition or version of a song by a not-so-famous singer. But if that rendition is well-known, then the artist responsible for it must have achieved SOME level of fame, even if most people can't name the artist.

And even if a singer has only achieved a modest level of fame with a well-known rendition, that singer would still be more expensive than an imitator. In other words, a barely famous singer should be more expensive than an IMITATOR of a barely famous singer, so the argument still holds.

I hope that helps!

mkeshri185 · Answer

(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

I wanted to choose this but i rejected this because it is not said that renditions belong to this famous singer only. It is not said that this rendition which is talked about here means 'rendition of the famous singer in passage'. How can we assume so? please clarify

miag · Answer

Hi,

It doesnt need to be of this specific famous singer to break the conclusion, as long as it applies to any well known renditions by any famous singers this still holds. If you negate the option choice, it becomes: the advertising industry will not use well-known renditions of songs in commercials, if this is the case then firms might not necessarily use famous singers => advertising costs might not rise => breaks conclusion

Hope this helps!

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for

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

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for

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