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

Question

When people are told that some behavior is common, they are more likely to indulge in that behavior even when society disapproves of it. For example, if many people are shown littering in an anti-litter advertisement, observers may subconsciously feel that littering is a normal, accepted activity. Thus, 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.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the argument’s conclusion?

A. In a study, the most effective anti-smoking advertisement featured a person smoking amidst a disapproving crowd.
B. The most effective way to influence behavior is for parents to teach their children not to litter.
C. People who watch public service advertisements are typically aware that actors are merely pretending to engage in the disapproved behavior.
D. Teenagers are more likely to litter than the general population and less likely to be influenced by anti-litter advertisements.
E. In a study, the most effective anti-littering advertisement featured a pristine public park with children playing in the background.

PyjamaScientist · Accepted Answer

@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.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Argument: 
 
If you want to influence people's behaviour towards an activity then do not show  anybody (not a single person)  doing that same activity in an  advertisement , as proved by  one  "anti-littering" commercial, where  many  people were shown littering.

So, the argument takes this  nasty  jump from  many  to  nobody . And, makes his   generalised conclusion   based on " one " advertisement.

I love such jumps that GMAT takes from one study case to reach a "generalised notion". So, if I can present an another case study with opposite results, it breaks my conclusion that is derived from the former study.

Option  (A)  does that nicely. If in another study, the   most effective  anti-smoking advertisement featured a person smoking amidst a disapproving crowd , then how can a " anti-littering " cause-effect  result  lead to a  generalised conclusion ? So,  (A)   weakens the claim derived from one study, and thus it is the correct answer.

Soumanti Roy · Answer

OA please?
In my opinion, C is correct. Even though got a bit confused between C and D, but I chose C over D as D only talks about littering example while the conclusion is pretty generic.

helipatel91198 · Answer

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

infowarf · Answer

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.

dhruva09 · Answer

I understand why A is right. Can someone explain how to eliminate C, since C too weakens the argument effectively.

ayush130 · Answer

People who watch  public service advertisement s are typically  aware  that actors are merely pretending to engage in the disapproved behavior.
Being aware doesn't mean that they won't do that activity. Even the ad is saying not to do it but they still do it

ahddhah · Answer

I think in this question we need to read the first line very carefully which says that "when one is told" and when an actor acts in ad then that actor does potray wrong activity as something common however it doesnt matter viewers are aware or not since "telling wrong doing as common thing" is sufficient condition in argument.

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

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

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

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