PT2.S2.Q10 - Advertisers are often criticized

sohailhussain2020

Can someone please explain WHY the answer to this question is "C" instead of "A"?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

nye8870

I was teetering between (A) & (C) too. The reason I finally chose (C) is because it brings in the fact that the advertisers were aware that they stood to lose money but went ahead and pulled out anyway. This aspect is part of the conclusion: "There is evidence, however, that some advertisers are motivated by moral *as well as financial* considerations." ac(A) just states that the advertisers chose to switch the ad to a different family magazine (and didn't discuss the financial impact of that decision). That was one good reason which led to my choice, I feel like there may be more...

miriaml7

I agree with you @sohailhussain2020! I really liked answer choice C, but ended up not choosing it precisely because the stimulus had pointed out that some companies were motivated by moral AS WELL AS financial considerations. Yes, I see that with answer choice A you have to assume that the reason they went to another family newspaper is because of a moral reason. However, I feel like a similar logic is found in answer choice C. I think you have to assume that the company would rather lose out on money than stay with the newspaper, on the basis of morality. What if it was because the CEO of the company had personal issues with the newspaper owner, and not because of morality?

Would really appreciate someone's insight.

sebramirez

@miriaml7 when I read answer choice A, my first thought was "so what?" So what if they move to family newspapers?

I believe you may have misidentified the conclusion. The conclusion isn't that some advertisers are motivated by moral as well as financial considerations. The conclusion is "This must have been because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material." Try the question again with this in mind.

If that is the conclusion, and the premises says that some companies are motivated by moral and financial considerations, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the advertisers actions must be because of moral disapproval. Answer C does exactly this! If they lost money leaving that magazine, then it is more likely that they really did not morally approve of the magazine's new direction.

Let me know if this helps!

miriaml7

Thank you for taking the time to reply! I also identified that as the conclusion, however I think my mindset regarding how to approach a strengthening question is what got me into trouble for this question. I have it engraved in my head that for strengthening/weakening we are attacking the support of the premise to the conclusion. Until now, I thought I had a solid understanding of what that meant. I thought you had to take into account all the premies and the conclusion when hunting for an AC that supports/weakens it. I have found myself eliminating answer choices because they simply do not match exactly what the premises are talking about, as was the case with this question. Would you mind clarifying what is meant by attacking the support and how to identify that when looking at answer choices? Thanks in advance! @atsebramirez

sebramirez

@miriaml7 sorry I'm just now replying--I didn't get a notification!

Attacking the support is very abstract tbh, sometimes I don't even understand what that means too. The way I look it is as such:

For strengthening, look for something that makes the premises more credible to support the conclusion. This varies based upon the flaw type. For example, if it's an argument by analogy, a strengthening choice would show that that the analogy is a good one. If it's an argument by false dichotomy, we want an AC that shows that the false dichotomy is actually fine.

For weakening, you want to expose the flaw and essentially do the opposite of strengthen. Just keep in mind that some ACs for strengthen and weakening questions don't have to strengthen or weaken the argument by a lot.

When evaluating the answer choices, I basically try to prephase based on what I think the flaw is. If I don't know that, I insert the answer choice into the stimulus and ask if it strengthens or weakens the argument.

I hope that clarifies something!

miriaml7

Thank you!!!!! @sebramirez