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

[reop6780]

Is the conclusion of Magazine editor, "they should realize...against their interests" ?

Why is it important for answer C to be assumed?

Even though "favorable mention...MORE value...," such mentioning can be still against their interests as long as the megazine's readershin is damaged by sich mentioning.

I simply do not understand why such comparison made in answer C is necessary for the conclusion in the stimuli.

[David Boyle]

Is the conclusion of Magazine editor, "they should realize...against their interests" ?

Why is it important for answer C to be assumed?

Even though "favorable mention...MORE value...," such mentioning can be still against their interests as long as the megazine's readershin is damaged by sich mentioning.

I simply do not understand why such comparison made in answer C is necessary for the conclusion in the stimuli.

Hello reop6780,

Yes, it may be the conclusion. And as a necessary part of the editor's argument, you need answer C. The editor thinks integrity is more important, the advertising director thinks that integrity isn't so important. And the editor, by implication, asserts that the magazine continuing is more important to the advertisers than merely getting some favorable mentions. Answer C encapsulates that.
You say, "Even though "favorable mention...MORE value...," such mentioning can be still against their interests as long as the megazine's readershin is damaged by sich mentioning." The stimulus says, "less value", not "more value", so maybe you are trying to do a negation. A negation would read, "equal or more value". And that would attack the stimulus, since there wouldn't be a reason to prefer integrity and the continuance of the magazine, over some favorable mentions.

Hope that helps,
David

[amna.ali467]

Hi there,

For some reason, the correct answer to this question isn'tt making complete sense to me. I don't really understand why C is the correct answer to question 23. Any sort of explanation would be helpful.

Thanks,
Amna

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi amna.ali,

For 23, C is correct because the editor says that it would be bad for advertisers if the magazines lost readers, but she fails to compare the negative impact of losing readers vs. the impact of refusing to mention the products in articles. Answer C points out that she is assuming it would be worse for the advertisers if the magazine lost all its readers.

[Haleyeastham]

My answer choice was B but the correct answer is C- however, I do not see how b or c is better than the other. Can you please explain?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Look at the strength of answer B here - can't give ANY favorable mention. Does the editor have to assume that? His argument is based on the idea that giving MORE favorable mention might look like pandering, which would reduce loyalty, drive down readership and make the magazine less effective for advertisers. Does that mean he has to ensure that there is NO favorable mention? Could it be that they could include an honest, fair article about an advertiser's product, saying some nice things about it, and not appear to be pandering?

Now try negating answer C - favorable mention is MORE important than continued effectiveness. That destroys the argument, doesn't it? That's how you know you have the right answer on an assumption question.

[azelawat3]

Look at the strength of answer B here - can't give ANY favorable mention. Does the editor have to assume that? His argument is based on the idea that giving MORE favorable mention might look like pandering, which would reduce loyalty, drive down readership and make the magazine less effective for advertisers. Does that mean he has to ensure that there is NO favorable mention? Could it be that they could include an honest, fair article about an advertiser's product, saying some nice things about it, and not appear to be pandering?

Now try negating answer C - favorable mention is MORE important than continued effectiveness. That destroys the argument, doesn't it? That's how you know you have the right answer on an assumption question.

The 'Magazine editor' nowhere specifies that the advertisers are requesting for 'more' favorable mentions. The editor clearly says that 'advertisers have been pressuring us to give favorable mention to their products in our articles.' I'm still confused between B and C.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi azelawat3,
What you may want to focus on between B and C is the difference in totality. In B the answer says "The magazine cannot give any favorable mention..." But the Magazine editor only says that "some of our regular advertisers have been pressuring us..." It may be the case that the magazine could give some advertisers favorable mention, but (perhaps) only if that favorable mention was agreeable to the readership, and it just happened to be the case that the folks requesting it were not (for example). This means that you could negate the answer choice and not destroy the argument, so it is not the correct answer.
In C the focus is on which would be better for the advertisers. C says that having the magazine serve as an advertising vehicle is more valuable to advertisers than a favorable mention in an article. If we negate that and say that it is not more valuable to have the magazine serve as an advertising vehicle than it would be to have the favorable mention in an article, then the Magazine editors argument falls apart. That makes C the correct answer.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Jay]

Hello.

Thank you for your explanation on the answer choice (B).

But am I right to say (B) is incorrect because

it's the readers' suspicion that matters. suspicion that integrity has been compromised.
it doesn't matter if editorial integrity is actually compromised.

[Robert Carroll]

Jay,

Answer choice (B) does not seem to be talking about actual integrity either. It talks about a reputation for integrity. So I don't see a mismatch between perception and reality relevant to this. The explanations above of why answer choice (B) is wrong should suffice to get rid of it.

Robert Carroll