Some critics of advertising have assumed that the creation of false needs in consumers is the principal mechanism underlying what these critics regard as its manipulative and hegemonic power. …
Marcuse supposed that we all have certain real needs, both physical and psychological. Advertising appropriates these needs for its own purposes, forging psychological associations between them and consumer items, e.g., between sex and perfume, thereby creating a false "need" for these items. Since the quest for fulfillment is thus displaced from its true objects to consumer items, the implicit promises of advertisements are never really fulfilled and the consumer remains at some level unsatisfied.
Unfortunately, the distinction between real and false needs upon which this critique depends is extremely problematic. If Marcusians are right, we cannot, with any assurance, separate our real needs from the alleged false needs we feel as a result of the manipulation of advertisers. For, in order to do so, it would be necessary to eliminate
But, in fact, Marcusians make a major mistake in assuming that the majority of consumers who respond to advertising do not do so autonomously. Advertising techniques are unable to induce unwilling behavior in rational, informed adults, and regulations prohibit misinformation in advertising claims. Moreover, evidence suggests that most adults understand and recognize the techniques used and are not merely passive instruments. If there is a real need for emotional fulfillment, and if we can freely and authentically choose our means of obtaining it, then free, informed individuals may choose to obtain it through the purchase of commodities or even through the enjoyment occasionally provided by advertisements themselves. …
Which one of the following sentences would most logically complete the passage?
Therefore, while in principle there might be grounds for holding that advertising is detrimental to society, the Marcusian critique does not provide such grounds.
This is the best answer. It captures the author’s rejection of the Marcusian view, and doesn’t say anything unsupported. If you don’t like (A) because of the phrase “while in principle there might be grounds for holding that advertising is detrimental to society,” please understand that this phrase doesn’t commit the author to agreeing that advertising is detrimental. This simply says that it might be possible for advertising to be detrimental – this is something we have no reason to think the author disagrees with. The passage focuses on rejecting the Marcusian view that advertising creates false needs, but the author isn’t defending advertising from other kinds of critiques. The only other answers that involve a rejection of Marcusian view include parts that are unsupported, so there’s no better answer than (A), which doesn’t say anything unsupported.
Therefore, although Marcusian claims about advertising are rationally justified, the mistake of many recent critics of advertising is in their use of these claims for political gain.
The author never suggests that Marcusian claims are “rationally justified.” So it wouldn’t make sense to finish the passage with this sentence.
Therefore, any shift in basic assumptions required to correct the abuses of advertising will require a change in the perception of human nature held by corporate leaders.
The last paragraph is focused on showing the Marcusian critique is wrong. (C) doesn’t say anything about the Marcusian critique being wrong. So it wouldn’t make sense to finish the passage with this sentence.
Therefore, while emphasizing only detrimental social aspects of advertising, Marcusians have failed to consider that such aspects are clearly outweighed by numerous social benefits.
The last paragraph is focused on showing the Marcusian critique is wrong. Although the author does point out certain effects of advertising that seem to be beneficial, the purpose of pointing out those benefits is not to argue that advertising is on balance more beneficial than harmful. The purpose is to show that, contrary to the Marcusian view, people are not necessarily deluded into a false kind of satisfaction by advertising. So it wouldn’t make sense to finish the passage with a general claim about the societal benefits of advertising; the point at the end should focus on the Marcusian view about false needs being wrong.
Therefore, the Marcusian critique of advertising is mistaken except in its claim that advertisers exert economic power over those few people who are unable or unwilling to distinguish real from false needs.
Very tempting, but wrong for several reasons. First, the Marcusians didn’t say that there were only “few people who are unable or unwilling to distinguish real from false needs.” The Marcusians believed that people generally can’t distinguish between these kinds of needs. So the phrase “those few people” doesn’t capture any claim that the Marcusians actually made. Second, the Marcusians didn’t assert that advertisers exert “economic” power over people. They asserted that advertising has manipulative, psychological power over people.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic