#22 - Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, Yeah I didnt even really know what kind of question it was maybe that is why I didn't get it correct. Could you kindly explain to me what type of question this is and what is going on? Thank You

[Ron Gore]

Hi JK,

You've asked two questions: 1) what type of question was this; and 2) what was going on in the question. What I'd like to do is answer your first question, and then with you having that information, put the ball back in your court.

This was a Method of Reasoning question. The question stem asks you to assess the advertising sales director's response to the magazine editor's argument. This means that you need to identify how the two arguments relate to each other, and to determine whether the advertising sales director's response fails or succeeds, and why.

With that understanding of the task, I ask that you go back to the question, develop a prephrase, and see if you are able to get to the correct answer choice. If you continue to have problems, let me know what your approach to the question was, and where you got stuck, if applicable.

Good luck, and please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Ron

[amna.ali467]

Hi there,

I don't really understand why D is the correct answer to question 22. Any sort of explanation would be helpful.

Thanks,
Amna

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi amna.ali,

For 22, the magazine editor is saying that changing the policy would actually lose readers - fewer people would buy the magazine. If they don't buy the magazine, they won't see the ads. The advertising sales director misunderstands her argument, and makes a counterargument about how readers view the ads. However, that misses the point that readers will be lost if the policy changes. Therefore, D is correct.

[linda.an]

Hello,

Why is answer D) a better answer than answer E)? Because I thought decreasing readership is reader's response to too many advertisement in the magazine.

Thank you for your help.

[Shannon Parker]

Hi linda.an,

While losing readership may be a response to too many advertisements in the real world, the magazine editor does not mention it, and is focused on the loss of readership due to opinion of the integrity of the magazine. It is the loss of readership that would reduce the magazine's effectiveness as an advertiser. The director responds by stating that readers do not judge advertisements based on their opinion of the integrity of the magazine, but misses the point that the magazine will have less readers to advertise to. Thus (D) is the correct answer.

Hope this clears it up some.
~Shannon

[taylorballou]

Hi,

I'm a little confused by this post because there is one reply saying "D" is the correct answer and one reply saying "E" is the correct answer.

I was working on this Method of Reasoning problem in the 2017 LR Question Type Training workbook, and I narrowed down my choices to "D" and "E." I ended up choosing E because I interpreted the "misunderstanding of the editor's view about how readers respond to advertisements they see in the magazine" as obvious photo advertisements (advertising-sales director) vs. subtle advertising within an actual article (magazine editor).

The answer key says "D" is the right answer, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the editor's argument does not depend on the assumption that they will lose readership if they start allowing advertisers to add ads within their articles.

Thank you,

Taylor

[Jon Denning]

Hey Taylor - good catch! I believe Shannon simply mistyped there, and intended to say (D) is correct. I've edited Shannon's response accordingly

Thanks!

[Jay]

I still don't understand this question.

Here is my thought process.

Magazine editor:

Conclusion: They should realize that giving favorable mention to their products in articles is against their interests.
Evidence:
1. Effective Advertisement -> loyal readership
2. Readers suspect editorial integrity after seeing ad. in articles -> No loyal readership

Assumptions:
1. Cost of Advertising on articles for regular advertisers > Benefit of advertising on articles for regular advertisers
2. Advertisement on articles is possible.
3. Advertisements on articles would cause readers to suspect editorial integrity.

Advertising-sales Director:
Conclusion: Magazine editor underestimate the sophistication of readers.
Evidence:
1. Readers know advertisements are not articles.
2. Readers' response to advertisements has never depended on integrity as a whole.

I thought Advertising-sales Director is touching upon the assumption number 3 made by Magazine editor as shown above.
I thought the answer was (A) because
Effective Ad. -> loyal readership -> Readers NOT suspecting editorial integrity.

Therefore, I thought "Readers NOT suspecting editorial integrity" was one of the "factors affecting an advertisement's effectiveness" (as shown in answer choice A).
And Advertising-sales director is saying readers' response to ad. would not be affected by their opinions on integrity.
Then, isn't it undermining assumption number 3? Isn't it saying Advertisement on articles would NOT cause readers to suspect editorial integrity even after seeing ad on articles?

Also, why (D) is correct?

[Robert Carroll]

Jay,

A full understanding of this stimulus requires realizing that the editor and sales director are talking about different issues.

The editor is trying to criticize a proposal put forth by advertisers. That proposal is to put favorable mention of products into articles. Imagine I'm reading a magazine. My expectation is that, when I see a big, full-page, glossy photo of a new car with a little text at the bottom that says "Visit your Chevy dealer today for the best deals of 2021!", I'm looking at an advertisement. On the other hand, when I see a page full of text, with a title at the top that says "Is Indonesia at a crossroads? A neoliberal analysis", I'm going to be reading an article. The author of the article may be trying to sell me on a point about Indonesia, but I don't expect him to be trying to sell me a car!

But the editor is saying that advertisers are precisely trying to get favorable product mentions added to the articles. So when I read that article about Indonesia, I might see an offhand remark that "Indonesian investment is especially promising for Chevy, which is considering exporting its stylish, fuel-efficient new 2021 lineup to the island nation". That would be inserting favorable product mentions into the articles.

The sales director is saying that readers can distinguish articles and advertisements, and that whatever happens in the advertisements won't affect readers' opinion of the magazine. But remember, the proposal is not to do something with advertisements, but to do something to the articles. The sales director's dismissal of the criticism isn't addressing the actual proposal, which is a proposal to mess with articles, not advertisements.

I think that my explanation eliminates any problems that could exist selecting answer choice (D). The sales director is defending a non-existent proposal to mess with advertisements, when the proposal is actually one that messes with articles.

Robert Carroll