When people are told that some behavior is common, they are more likel

Can someone please explain why the answer is A
I am still hooked on option C

@SoumantiRoy helipatel91198 The conclusion, "in order to influence behavior effectively, it is critical not to show or discuss anyone engaging in an activity that the advertisement seeks to discourage", rests on the premise derived from a single case study, that is, "observers subconsciously feel that littering is normal after seeing many people litter in an ad".

Now we need to weaken this conclusion. As you can observe that the conclusion is quite a "generalised statement", derived from a single case study. Such generalised statements derived from a single case study are often tested on the GMAT. And though at first, it may look okay, it is wrong to reach a generalised statement based on a single case. Because that one case might be an anomaly or an exception, in that case, your conclusion will break down.

An easier sample argument to understand this is: - School X's education board has been promoting dance as a subject, thus it proves that the education board of the city M has taken huge steps towards the advancement of dance in city M. Here, you can see how I reached a general statement about City M's education Board based on School X's education board. School X's education board may or may not align with City M's vision. And here, if I bring in another statement, such as, "But majority of the schools in the City M have not introduced a similar policy with respect to dance as a subject". Then your belief in the original conclusion about City M's education board will be weakened.

This is what has been done in the given question as well. Choice (A) brings in an alternate counter case study that weakens the belief in our conclusion.

Option (C) on the other hand does neither. Even if the consumers know that the public is aware of the fact that "actors are merely pretending to engage in the disapproved behaviour in the advertisement", it does not weaken the assertion that their "performances" have an impact on their habits. There's nothing, in the stimulus or anyway, provided that might link "public being aware of actors acting in the advertisement" to "The public's habits not being influenced due to their awareness on this matter". They might very well be influenced even after being aware of the fact in (C). So, (C) does not weaken our belief in the conclusion, and this is why it is not the correct choice.

I hope it helps.

The argument tries to tell that whether a behavior is depicted from a bad or a good sight, the amount of times it is brought to people's attention decides whether people will repeat that behavior.

The conclusion basically says that in order people to not repeat the bad behavior the ads should avoid showing something negative in vast quantities.

We should weaken the argument. The answers B and D are discussing specific examples, which still leave the argument strong enough for the other cases.

E. In a study, the most effective anti-littering advertisement featured a pristine public park with children playing in the background. This choice does not anyhow tell that the bad example shown in the ads affect people positively.

C. People who watch public service advertisements are typically aware that actors are merely pretending to engage in the disapproved behavior.

The first sentence of the stimulus tells us that the behavior that becomes common because of a mass spread is disapproved by the society. We should already know that people knowingly repeat the bad behavior, hence their knowledge about the actors' commitment to the advertised behavior should not deny the fact that if people are fed by these ads "enough" they will repeat the behavior advertised anyway.

A. In a study, the most effective anti-smoking advertisement featured a person smoking amidst a disapproving crowd.

This option destroys the whole argument. The smoker, who suggests a negative behavior, smokes among those who disapprove the action. The ad was effective means that the people watching the ad followed not the smoker but the society. Accordingly, the premises and the conclusion fall apart.