Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo

Question

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.

(B) Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

(D) Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.

(E) Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.

perfectstranger · Accepted Answer

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

c. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Premise 1: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware
Premise 2:.......... since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent  reduction in circulation and advertising  Kitchen's revenue will arise from  1) licensing 2) advertisements  from makers of cookware 3) circulation 
Premise 3 : However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen.  (no risk on licensing since it is evaluated by experts) 
Conclusion : Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.( If Kitchen license its name then other cookware producers will not give adds, thus the revenue will be lessen. )

nevergiveup · Answer

Let me take a guess. 
E is one of the extreme answer that rarely will be right.
D I don't know, it does seem to relate to the circulation of the magazine though.
B products other than the line of cookware seems out of scope
A seems wrong to me too, but I don't know how to explain why it is wrong.

I will guess C. Since the conclusion says 'Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues', it is assuming that there is no other ways to endanger its other revenues. In other words, the quality of line of cookware is the only factor that might damage its other revenues. C kind of rules out other possibilities. Maker of cookware do want to advertise.

rampuria · Answer

In such type of choices I feel it is better to use the Denial Test i.e. by denying the options can the argument be destroyed. You will arrive at the answer C. If the advertisers indeed have any objections they will not advertise in the magazine, and this destroys our argument.

ritula · Answer

Yes....I had also guessed it C only. C and D can be narrowed down. others r irrelevant. Here the punch line is the last line .

mustdoit · Answer

Let me try..
A: Doesnt matter even if some other cookware is superior to the one using kitchen's name. In fact I see a scope shift "other line of cook ware" vs "other line of cookware advertised in kitchen". Eliminate.
B: Again who cares.. if it does lic to brand of shaving cream as long as it can get revenues. It may or may not work. So this is not an assumption. Eliminate.

C: Well now if C is true, then then the other makers of cookware who have till now advertised in kitchen might stop advertising in Kitchen. This could lead to loss of revenue.So C could be the answer.

D: What if this is not true.... no harm done. u will not increase revenue but u may/maynot lose revenue.. Eliminate.

E: Who cares is kitchen is not the most prestigeous mag.. Eliminate.

So C is my answer.

seekmba · Answer

Makers of cookware will find Kitchen more attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

If the makers of cookware find kitchen magazine attractive then there is scope for kitchen magazine to generate revenue

but if the makers of cookware dont find kitchen magazine attractive then that would hurt the magazine's revenue which they get fro0m advertisements.

option (C) would strengthen and weaken the conclusion when we test with the extremes

thutran · Answer

Premise 1: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name for a line of cookware
Premise 2: Licensing the name of the magazine generates some risks since if the products disappoint customers, the magazine's prestige will be affected, therefore, magazine's advertising rev will be impacted negatively. 
Premise 3: According the evaluation of some experts, this cookware is the most prestigious brand compare to other brands advertised on Kitchen magazine.
Conclusion: Kitchen magazine can collect licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.

Considering the 5 answer choices:
a. This is the refrase of one premise, not an assumption
b. Out of scope answer
c. This is the correct answer. The Kitchen magazine has its own strengths and it can evaluate and agree to license its name to the cookware line. But the cookware line has its own position - it is superior to other brands advertised on Kitchen magazine - and the brand also considers if it's worth to pay for licensing fee on the Kitchen magazine while there are other cookware brands already advertised in this magazine. The assumption close the gap in the argument "yes, I agree with the proposition from you".
d. Out of scope answer
e. The magazine is prestigous, the cookware brand also prestigious. So, one side agree to do business does not mean that the other side also agree.

blueseas · Answer

Hi,

conclusion : 
 KITCHEN can collect fees ==>sure it will not loose  other  revenues.

now we are concerned only about the consequence which could happen because of this action....and not because what other things KITCHEN magazine will /will not do.

option B says:b. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.==>this one is out of context...we are not worried about the harms by other action..which kitchen will do in future...hence this is wrong

option C: Maker s   of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product

NOW IN THIS OPTION it is saying all  other  makers(not the one from whom kitchen is going to get fese)==>they will not find kitchen less attractive for advertisements...
now if they find KITCHEN less attractive because KITCHEN is going to endrse a competetive product(from whom KICHEN is going to get fees)==>It means other cookware will not advertise in this magazine==>hence it is losing revenue...===>hence this is the assumption ...as it is shattering the conclusion

hope it helps.

MzJavert · Answer

Kitchen magazine is seeking to earn new income from the licensing fees and maintain income from Circulation and Advertising. Only the success or failure of the cookware line is seen as affecting income from Circulation and Advertising. They are assuming no other factors come into play. Answer C is one of those assumptions.

Carcass · Answer

best strategy.

1) evaluate each sentence of the stimulus

kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware.

a fact

For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reductions in circulation and advertising.

a possible setback of this strategy

However , experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. T herefore , Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.

shift in the argument and consequentely consclusion

this is the part that the assumption is related and is the key part of the entire argument

A. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name .

too extreme: no other line and also a comparison. not related to something that permits to collect fee without endagering the company

B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

other than something..........not related

C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Bingo. if the makers FIND the kitchen magazine less attractive, we have less fees and the company is endagered by the magazine. this assumption defends the argument. so is perfect

D. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.

what the reader do is not related to our fee

E. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.

wheter the magazine is well regognized or not is not related

I hope it helps you. do not esitate to ask if something remains unclear to you

gmatexam439 · Answer

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

The argument above assumes which of the following?
a. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. - This is repetition of what is written in the premise 
b. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware. - We are worried about the revenues from other such sources as advertisement and readers. This option doesn't talk about the revenue from alternate sources. 
c. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. - Correct. If the advertisers withdraw from the magazine then it will be a loss of revenue for the magazine. 
d. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name. - We are worried about the attraction to magazine and not to cookware. 
e. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines. - Irrelevant

Cellchat · Answer

Question Type = Assumption   so let's go with the negation technique.

Conclusion to dismantle =  Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

(A) No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.  Even if other cookware lines are superior than Kitchen, this doesn't endanger Kitchen's other revenues.

(B) Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.  If Kitchen does license its name for other products, you'd have to infer other facts to dismantle the conclusion. So what if they use their name for other products, the stem doesn't specify if these lines will go bad.

(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.  If makers of cookware find Kitchen less attractive, "the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reductions in circulation and advertising". This will endanger its other revenues!

(D) Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.  If consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine are not attracted to Kitchen's cookware, at worst, this may endanger the revenue of cookware, although this will not endanger its OTHER revenues. C is still the top.

(E) Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.  If Kitchen is not one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines, this statement does nothing to compromise Kitchens other revenues.

UChisb · Answer

I am still unable to understand the technical language that is used in this question. Licensing, Advertising, Circulation - how is it linked together & what does the last part endangering other revenues mean?

aditiphadnis · Answer

There is a magazine named Kitchen Magazine. 
 
What do you understand from this? Kitchen Magazine would publish certain stuff related to cookware or cooking articles. It will receive advertising revenues from manufacturers who want to advertise their cookware. 
Now, this Magazine itself is launching its own cookware. And it is using its own brand name that is the magazine name for this product. For example if the Magazine Name is Kitchen, The product name is also Kitchen Frypan.

There are 2 conditions it needs to evaluate before taking this decision. 
 
Imagine a situation where-
 Situation 1: 
 
This new product, Kitchen Frypan is not of a good quality. It just breaks even after careful use. The customer service is also not good. 
Do you think this may also affect the sale of the magazine. Yes it will. People will have an opinion that the magazine has looted them and has launched a faulty product. Thus this may affect their subscription fees as less people will buy the magazine. 
However. the company has tested the product extensively and has come to a conclusion that there can be no fault in the product.

Situation 2: This is our assumption. It is not discussed in the question. 
 
There are other kitchenware manufacturers who advertise in the magazine. Say competitor Prestige Fry pan. Now don’t you think the other manufacturers may hesitate to advertise their brand in a competitor’s magazine. Because the magazine would be biased to provide exclusive coverage to its own products.

But this is not mentioned in the argument. The argument simply ignores this or assumes that situation 2 wold not occur. So this our right answer- 
 
(C) Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

anshgupta · Answer

Doesn't the negation of option A contradict the conclusion?

AndrewN · Answer

No,  anshgupta , regardless of how you negate option (A), it would not contradict the conclusion. Note that the premise for the conclusion is that  experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware  advertised in Kitchen   (my italics). Take a look at (A) again:

The answer choice does not specify cookware advertised in the magazine, just  cookware . There could very well be superior cookware that is  not  advertised in the magazine, and the existence of such cookware would have no bearing on the argument as presented.

Watch those modifiers, and when evaluating answer choices, stick to exactly what the passage says. (Associative reasoning can get you into trouble quickly.)

- Andrew

smbbourne007 · Answer

Can't eliminate the option B. If we negate option B, then it affects the argument. Here is how. If they license it and the product is bad, it affects the reputation or advertisement, which in turn affects their revenue, thereby undermining the conclusion that licensing will not affect their revenue.

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

You've introduced a pretty big 'if' into that argument, though. We don't know they'll license a bad product--and in fact, it seems they're being meticulous about only endorsing good products. So a negated B *on its own* does not ruin the argument.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Conclusion: Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues. We need to find the gap in the argument. The first thing that jumps up – ‘Other revenues’ have not even been mentioned in the premises. We are concluding that they will not be impacted by the licensing. Also, experts have found the cookware superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen, not all other cookware in this price range. What if all cookware advertised in Kitchen are low quality and so is this particular cookware (but better comparatively). So concluding that the cookware is good quality may be a bit premature. Let’s look at the options. A. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name. We need this cookware to be high quality, not necessarily the best. B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware. This is irrelevant. We don’t need to assume no other future collaborations.   C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. We are assuming that other revenues will not get impacted. So we are assuming that advertisers will not find Kitchen a less attractive vehicle due to the licensing. Negated: Makers of cookware will find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle. We know that other cookware makers advertise in Kitchen. If Kitchen becomes less attractive to them, Kitchen may lose revenues. Our conclusion breaks. Correct.   D. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.   We are talking about the revenue of Kitchen magazine. If consumers buy the cookware, it will not impact Kitchen magazine’s revenues (since Kitchen will get just the licensing fee). Hence this is irrelevant. E. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines. No such assumption needed. There may be other more prestigious cooking-related magazines. Answer (C) Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo

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

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of coo

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