#21- Advertiser: Most TV shows depend on funding from

[rachue]

Hi, this question really confuses me. All of the answers seem so similar and I don't understand why B is correct over D and A, in particular. Perhaps you could help me do the S/N diagramming? Maybe that is where my misunderstanding lies.. Thanks in advance.

[Jon Denning]

The idea in the stimulus is that a show depends on advert money, but advertisers only give the show that money if people buy what's being advertised. So to keep a show on the air, people should buy the products being sold, since people not buying the products will lead to no more ad money which will lead to the show's cancellation.

Clearly the second part of B is a perfect match to the last sentence in the stimulus (actions = buy products), so I imagine the question is about the first part of B:

Answer B: Not Canceled --> Many People Buy Products
Contra: Many People Don't Buy Products --> Canceled

And that contra is exactly what is given in the second-to-last sentence in the stimulus. So B matches well.

D fails because it talks about reducing the likelihood of cancellation and the stim is about simply canceled or not (not probability). A is wrong because it relates the cancellation to a single person's actions, while the stim says it's the failure of the majority to buy products that leads to cancellation ("people generally fail...").

[rachue]

That helps me see why A and D have to be incorrect. It's very subtle. Thanks!

[RENG]

I had one other issue with this question that I wasn't sure was touched upon in the discussion.

I may be reading too much into the stimulus or misunderstanding the relationship of "anyone/everyone." Are these two terms interchangeable and equivalent in meaning?

Because it seemed to me that the second half of B is not perfectly matched to the last sentence of the stimulus. The last two sentences respectively first speak about the entire group failing collectively to buy things, but as a remedy only speaks to the specific individual ("anyone") that should go buy things in the last sentence. not the whole group.

and so I didn't choose B which specified that "everyone" should buy stuff. But the Stimulus only said "anyone"

A maintains that focus on the individual ("one") but A has the inverse problem of ignoring the second to last sentence which says that the problem belongs to the whole group. figuring that it is at least better to omit part of an issue than directly contradict part of an issue I chose A.
though both answers seemed poor which is why I almost picked D after first selecting A. I ended up sticking with A. I probably wasted 5-7 full minutes on this one question when the rest of the whole section went very smoothly.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi RENG,

To answer your first question - yes, "anyone" and "everyone" are interchangeable. That alone is not the reason why B is correct, though. Consider the gap in the reasoning in the original argument: the author warns us that the show would be cancelled unless many people buy the advertised products, but then concludes that anyone who wants to save the show should buy these products. The disconnect between "many" and "anyone/everyone" is key, and answer choice B is the only one that bridges the two.

Hope this helps! Let me know

[brcibake]

Why isn't E correct? Only those who believe that a TV show is worth preserving should take the stated actions. You shouldn't do that if you don't believe it is worth preserving. Did I take my reasoning beyond what the passage discussed?
Thank you

[Eric Ockert]

The key problem on answer choice (E) is the "those who feel most strongly" language. That doesn't really match the stimulus.

Notice that answer choice (B) and (E) are identical in their sufficient conditions. However, (B) goes on to say "then everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving ought to take those actions." That matches the last sentence of the stimulus almost word for word ("take those actions" would match "buy the products"). With answer choice (E), the stimulus never discussed those that feel "the most strongly" about preservation. It only discussed those who feel a show is worth preserving, regardless of how strongly they held those feelings.

[lsacgals101]

Hi,

Could you help me figure out how I can map these answers and move more quickly move through this problem/? I got the answer right, but wasn't sure if it was right... and was furthermore thrown off by the "unless" embedded in the SC of many of the answers. For answer B, for example, i didn't know whether i should map like this:

One diagram (cram everything in the answer into one diagram)
TV cancelled many NOT take action --> TV worth preserving Take Action

OR:

Make two diagrams? (not sure how to connect the two though?)
~Cancelled --> Many people took action
Think TV worth preserving --> Take that action



What would you recommend--generally in terms of mapping-- and also to increase speed?

thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The answer, lsacgals101, is (I'm sorry to do this to you) both. You've come across the troubling case of a "nested conditional", which is a conditional statement that has another conditional statement "inside" it, either as a sufficient condition or as a necessary condition or both. Your first diagram, with everything "crammed in" as you said (and that is an excellent way to describe a nested conditional!), captures exactly that situation - conditional statements that are within a larger conditional statement.

But you can also take a simpler approach as you did in your second diagram, and try to link them in some way, thereby creating the nested conditional relationship. Many times I find that approach to be a bit cleaner, at least to understand and break down the answer or the stimulus, but then it is a little extra work to make the link.

Ultimately, I think the best approach starts, as it always does, with a solid prephrase. We should be looking for an answer that says something along the lines of "if a lot of people need to do something for it to work, then each person who wants it done should do it." Find an answer that connects the ideas of "many people need to do it" to the conclusion that "one person should do it." I think that would allow a more holistic approach to the answers, rather than one that relies on diagrams that can, as you found, slow you down. You should not be diagramming any answers until you have first sorted them into losers and contenders based on the degree to which they match your prephrase, and then, if you must, diagram only your contenders to see which one gets it right. Diagramming them all as you go is slow and inefficient, and should not be necessary if you are armed with a good prephrase.