Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televi

Question

Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of the half-hour slot a substantial portion of the viewing public had tuned into that station. Clearly, then, many more people are interested in lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.

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

(A) The candidate who produced the half-hour-long advertisement did not win election at the polls.

(B) The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast.

(C) The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during a time slot normally taken by one of the most popular prime-time shows.

(D) Most short political advertisements are aired during a wide range of programs in order to reach abroad spectrum of viewers

(E) In general a regular -length television program that features debate about current political issues depends for its appeal on the personal qualities of the program’s moderator.

Similar stem but Assumption question: because-it-was-long-thought-that-few-people-would-watch-46450.html

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

Untitled.png [ 66.52 KiB | Viewed 14928 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

Every tricky question should trigger a follow up quiz. Build that habit with GMAT Club Forum Quiz →.

dchow23 · Accepted Answer

Conculsion - ppl more interested in lengthy political messages.

Evidence: last year, a candidate produced a lengthy political message. Substantial ppl tuned into the station.

We want to WEAKEN the Conclusion, (ppl are not interested in lengthy messages.)

A - win?? Who cares whether he or she won
B - ad was widely publicized - does it weaken the Conclusion? No!, but you might of considered this cause it may confuse you. 
C - Interesting...If the nation was expecting the Superbowl to start at 6pm and we got Joe Dirt delaying the start for a political message, but we all tuned in... hold this
D- who cares- out of scope, C is stronger
E- who cares- out of scope

Therefore C is best ans choice. Ppl tuned into a show that was expected to be aired, but Joe Dirt took the time, knowing that many ppl would tune in to broadcast how amazing he is...Therefore CCCCCCC,

Agree???

kraizada84 · Answer

Okay what the passage basically says:

short ads were popular among population, 
but because of an instance of good crowd for one a long advertisement makes the argument suppose the trend has changed.

now to weaken this conclusion we need to find something that attacks the relation good crowd and the long advertisement. Basically we are searching for something that will straight give us a reason to say okay so this was the reason crowd was there not that long ad was aired.

look at C it directly conveys the same, the crowd was there because some other popular show was aired there .

hope this helps.

shadabkhaniet · Answer

Ok now I got it. Thank you dchow23 and kraizada84. +1

Lstadt · Answer

Hey shadabkhaniet,

Basically we have the following

Since many people tuned in at the beginning of a lengthy political commercial ----> people's interest in lengthy commercials is there (or people now have interest in long political commercials)

C provides an alternate cause for why people tuned in to that program. Hence, it weakens the argument.

Good luck.

vdbhamare · Answer

IMO C........

Tricky one...... thought b was best answer....but it should be C.........as b still means ppl are interested in long ad.

harikrish · Answer

Option C , provides an alternative reason, why many people area watching it. 
 
Therefore the answer is Option C.

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo C
IF viewers are not aware about the change in the program timing and if that program is very popular like Game of Thrones people are going to tune in to that slot.But to their surprise they find a half hour long political message , people are surely going to switch the TV as soon as they see it . :-D

Madhavi1990 · Answer

IMO C for obvious reasons - it says quite clearly that the message aired during an empty prime time TV show slot --> so inadvertently people watched it.
Can this question be posted properly - that is, without the picture? Some of the words are missing on the right. 
Thank you!

Probus · Answer

Hi Moderators,  Bunuel

Can you edit the post with the question and answer choices

Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of the half-hour slot a substantial portion of the viewing public had tuned into that station. Clearly, then, many more people are interested in lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.

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

(A)The candidate who produced the half-hour-long advertisement did not win election at the polls.
(B)The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast.
(C) The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during a time slot normally taken by one of the most popular prime-time shows.
(D)Most short political advertisements are aired during a wide range of programs in order to reach abroad spectrum of viewers
(E)In general a regular -length television program that features debate about current political issues depends for its appeal on the personal qualities of the program’s moderator.

Would be helpful for community members. 
Probus

Bunuel · Answer

_______________
Edited. Thank you.

sahilhafnia · Answer

The passage states that because many people tuned their channels to the station which had started airing the half hour long speech, it can be concluded that people not only like small channels as is generally known, but also like long speeches, unlike what was believed earlier.

We have to find a gap or a scenario which can weaken this conclusion. In short, we have to try and prove that people actually don't like long speeches as is being concluded now. What if many people came to the channel without knowing what was being played at that channel at that moment, and by chance bumped into this long speech. Also, what if people sure came to the channel knowingly or unknowingly, but did not stay long enough so as to help us conclude that they like long speeches.

Looking at options :

A) Well, the candidate can normally be judged on many other parameters as well. May be people liked his speech but not his personality or actions on the ground level. May be people just listened to him so as to know what is going on in the minds of politicians nowadays. This option does not have a strong link with the conclusion. It should be an incorrect choice.

B) If the ad was advertised for very long, it makes one of my weaken points nullified. It actually means that people did not just unknowingly bumped into the ad. They knew very well what it will contain and for how long it will last.It shows that they came to listen with interest. If they had no interest, they would never have come in the first place. This option acts as a strengthener. Incorrect choice.

C) If this ad was aired during a time slot normally taken by a very famous show, it becomes likely that people wanted to see that show, but accidentally happened to be present at the beginning of this long ad. In such a case, its difficult to conclude that they came because they were interested. This option acts a weaken statement and is correct.

D) This option talks about how the small ads are shown to the public, but does not talk about the long ones. It seems to have no link and is only trying to divert our attention to short length ads. Incorrect choice.

E) So a regular length program is famous if the moderator has good qualities. This option hints that the moderator of this long ad was in fact liked by the public, so people came in large numbers. This adds weight to the conclusion and is definitely not the correct choice.

Answer choice should be C

Hoozan · Answer

It is worth noticing the words " At the beginning  of the half-hour slot" This can help us ask the question  what about the end? Did the people stay till the end? did they leave?    If we got to weaken the argument we got to show that the viewership was a lot only at the beginning due to some reason

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televi

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

Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televi

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