Self-study
Support The television network's advertisement for its new medical drama grossly misrepresents what that program is like. █████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███ █████████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ████████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████████
Summary
The author concludes that the TV network’s ad for the new medical drama will not be as effective at attracting viewers likely to continue watching as would the ad that the program’s producers favored.
What makes the author think this?
Because the TV network’s ad grossly misrepresents what the program is like.
In addition, people who tune into the first episode based on false expectations will be unlikely to watch later episodes.
Notable Assumptions
Notice that the conclusion asserts a comparison between the TV network’s ad and the ad that the program’s producers favored. But the premises don’t say anything about the ad that the program’s producers favored. That’s the signal to us that the author is making an assumption about the ad that the program’s producers favored.
Specifically, the author assumes that the ad the program’s producers favored does not suffer from the same problem that the TV network’s ad suffered from. In other words, the author assumes that the ad the program’s producers favored does NOT grossly misrepresent what the program is like.
The author also assumes that the ad the program’s producers favored will not be as likely to create create false expectations among the first episode’s viewers as will the the TV network’s ad.
13.
The argument relies on which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████
a
Most viewers who ████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ████████
Not necessary, because even if fewer than most viewers who tune into the first episode will do so because of the ad, the ad can still be less likely to attract viewers who are likely to continue watch as the other ad would have attracted.
b
The advertisement that ███ █████████ █████████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ██████████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if the advertisement that the program’s producers favored WOULD have grossly misrepresented what the program would be like — then we have no reason to think the ad favored by the program’s producers would be different from the TV network’s ad in terms of its potential to give viewers false expectations.
c
Most people who ████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ████████
Not necessary, because the conclusion concerns a claim about the relative potential of the two ads to attract viewers who are likely to continue watching. The author believes the TV network’s ad isn’t as good at attracting those viewers as the other ad would have been. But this comparison doesn’t require any belief about over half (”most”) of viewers and whether those viewers were attracted by the ad or not. One ad can be worse at attracting long-term viewers than another ad regardless of what proportion of viewers tune into the first episode because of an ad.
d
If the advertisement ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████
Not necessary, because “almost all” is too extreme. The conclusion is just that the TV network’s ad won’t be as good at attracting long-term viewers as the other ad would have been. This doesn’t imply the author thinks that “almost all” would have continued watching had we used the other ad. The author just needs to believe that MORE viewers would become long-term viewers had we used the other ad.
e
Most people who ██████ █████ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ████████
Not necessary, because the conclusion concerns a claim about the relative potential of the two ads to attract viewers who are likely to continue watching. The author believes the TV network’s ad isn’t as good at attracting those viewers as the other ad would have been. But this comparison doesn’t require any belief about over half (”most”) of viewers and whether those viewers missed the first episode. One ad can be worse at attracting long-term viewers than another ad regardless of what proportion of viewers watched the first episode.