Self-paced
Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular advertisers have been pressuring us to give favorable mention to their products in our articles, but they should realize that Conclusion for us to yield to their wishes would actually be against their interests. ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ███████████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████████
█████████████████ █████████ ███ █████████████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████
Q23: The Editor's Argument
·
Two Link Assumptions
Here's the editor's argument summarized:
Premise: If readers suspect we've compromised our integrity, they will stop reading our magazine.
Premise: If they stop reading our magazine, we'll stop being an effective advertising vehicle.
—
Conclusion: Us putting favorable product mentions in our articles would be against advertisers' interests.
Link assumptions are a staple of necessary questions, and if you're tuned into that concept you'll notice that our conclusion features two terms that aren't mentioned in the stimulus at all.
These are the core gaps in the editor's logic: 1) the link between favorable product mentions and compromising editorial integrity, and 2) the link between remaining an effective advertising vehicle and acting in advertisers' interests.
Q22: The Misunderstanding
·
Hating Ads vs. Never Seeing Ads
There’s a difference between what the editor actually said and what the director thinks they said:
What The Editor Said
If we put product mentions in our articles, people will think our magazine is garbage, which will make them stop reading it. We’ll be an ineffective advertising vehicle because we'll lose our readers and hence there will be no one to read our ads.
What The Director Thinks The Editor Said
If people think our magazine is garbage, they’ll think our advertisements are garbage too. The advertisements in our magazine will be ineffective because people will respond poorly when they read them.
So the editor is saying “we’ll be an ineffective ad vehicle for the same reason billboards at the bottom of the ocean are ineffective ad vehicles: no one will see the ads.”
But the director responds “people can tell ads apart from articles, so even if they think our magazine is total garbage, they won’t think the ads are garbage.”
22.
Which one of the following ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████████████ ████████████ ████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████████
a
It succeeds because ██ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██████████ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████████████ ██████████████
If you have a full understanding of the stimulus, (A) is wrong because the director’s argument doesn’t succeed – it misses the editor’s point.
The editor’s argument isn’t about what makes for a good magazine ad, it’s about how people have to actually read magazine ads to be affected by them. It’s not the advertisements that are ineffective, what’s ineffective is the attempt to advertise in a publication no one reads.
b
It succeeds because ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████████
If you have a full understanding of the stimulus, (B) is wrong because the director’s argument doesn’t succeed – it misses the editor’s point.
But also, (B) basically says the director’s argument succeeds because its first sentence is true. That’s a bit of circular reasoning – it succeeds because it is correct when it says the things it says.
c
It succeeds because ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ █████████
If you have a full understanding of the stimulus, (C) is wrong because the director’s argument doesn’t succeed – it misses the editor’s point.
But (C) is also wrong for fact vs. belief reasons: the editor never makes a claim about how the magazine’s editorial integrity will in fact be affected, just about how people think its editorial integrity will be affected.
d
It fails because ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ █████████
The editor’s argument has nothing to do with how readers respond to the ads they read – instead the editor argues that people won’t even see the ads because they’ll stop reading the magazine altogether.
e
It fails because ██ ██ █████ ██ █ ████████████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ █████████
(E) makes the same mistake the director does: the editor doesn’t have a view about how readers respond to the ads they see.
The argument fails because it is based on a misunderstanding of the editor’s view about how readers won’t even see the ads.