#10 - Advertisers are often criticized for their

[whardy21]

I chose answer A. I believed that if the advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers it would strengthen the conclusion that the advertisers withdrew due to morally disapproving of publishing salacious material. I thought that because the advertisers were with the family publication before the publication changed to sex and violence. In my opinion, the switch back to a family publication gives validity to advertisers leaving the changed publication because of moral and salacious material. Please explain to me why A does not strengthen the conclusion.

Secondly, I'm not clear as to why C strengthens the conclusion. I don't see the impact it has to make me thing it strengthens the conclusion or the argument. Please explain. Thank you.

[James Finch]

Hi W. Hardy,

This is a causal relationship question, where we're being asked to increase the likelihood that a moralistic disapproval of the newspaper's change in focus was the cause of the advertisers withdrawing their ads. While (A) looks good at first glance, the issue is that it doesn't tell us enough information as to be able to eliminate any potential alternate causes, such as declining market share for the original newspaper, or a change in the demographics of people reading the newspaper leading to expected drop in advertising effectiveness (ie a diaper company no longer thinking that the newspaper is no longer catering to new mothers).

(C) does eliminate a potential alternate cause, thus strengthening the argument, by taking away the potential of greater profits from switching from the original newspaper to more family-friendly ones (the economic motive). If it would be more economical to continue advertising with the original newspaper, even after the change in focus, then it follows that the advertisers must have been motivated by something that isn't simply product sales; that other motivation could well be moral disapproval, so it strengthens the argument made by the stimulus by eliminating the most obvious alternate cause.

Hope this clears things up!

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - just wonder why the Answer Choice (D) is incorret given that people are not likely to buy the changed publication may result in negative financial considerations for advertisers. Many thanks!

[katehos]

Hi Christine!

Consider the conclusion of the argument: that some advertisers consider morals when making decisions. Answer choice (D), like you mentioned, may result in a scenario in which advertisers make the switch for financial reasons, not moral ones! This would then weaken the conclusion that advertisers sometimes consider morals! So, it's not a good candidate for a Strengthen question.

(C), on the other hand, shows a scenario in which the financial outcome of staying with the publication was more beneficial for the advertisers, yet they still switched. This means they likely put morals above money, which strengthens the conclusion!

I hope this helps
Kate

[Mmjd12]

Hi,

As it was explained above, the correct answer to this strengthen question would've hinged on something having to do with the morals of the advertisers. That was close to the way I prephrased it as well.

I wanted to ask about the difference between (A) and (C):

For (C), the correct answer, we are to suppose that the advertisers, despite potential higher earnings, withdrew from the publication for moral reasons

By that logic, for (A), we could also suppose that advertisers, without consideration to what sort of financial standing would result, switched their advertisements to other family newspapers for moral objections to the switch of genre.

Both of those choices seem to be on equal footing to me as far as strengthening the argument. It feels like a leap to say (C) is not for financial gain, therefore it must be for a moral concern and not make the same leap for (A)

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Mmjd12!

You comment,

For (C), the correct answer, we are to suppose that the advertisers, despite potential higher earnings, withdrew from the publication for moral reasons

That seems correct. As answer choice (C) states, "The advertisers expected their product sales to increase if they stayed with the changed publication, but to decrease if they withdrew." This means that, by withdrawing, they made a decision to leave the publication despite financial considerations that recommended against doing so.

That helps the conclusion that there is evidence "that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations." This was a situation in which their choice was not guided by financial considerations, and moreover, it is also situation involving a publication that switched from being a family newspaper to one instead focused on sex and violence. It was not financial considerations but rather something else--perhaps a switch of the publication from family values to something more salacious, that motivated the advertisers.

By contrast, answer choice (A) only states that "advertisers switched their advertisements to other family newspapers." What if it were more financially lucrative to switch to these other family newspapers? The answer choice doesn't say. If it were more lucrative, then this doesn't strengthen the conclusion that there is evidence "that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations." Thus on its own, answer choice (A) doesn't do anything to strengthen the conclusion.