Self-study
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.”
23.
The magazine editor’s argument assumes █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
A magazine editor ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
In addition to its much too strong wording ("should never be influenced"), (A) is also off-topic from the editor's narrow conclusion that product placement would ultimately cut against the advertisers' interests.
The editor's argument, ultimately, is that these companies should have different wishes. It's not about the morality of that editor's own choices.
b
The magazine cannot ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██████████
(B) targets the link assumption in the editor's argument between favorable product mentions and compromising editorial integrity, and gets really close to nailing it.
The problem is its strong wording (they "cannot give any mention…"). The editor does indeed assume that adopting a product placement strategy would cause readers to suspect the magazine has sold out its integrity, but (B) acts like the editor's principle is "product placement: not even once," which is a hair too strong.
A drug analogy is apt here. (B) says something like "if you try MDMA even once, you'll permanently damage your brain," whereas the author says something like "if you make a habit of doing MDMA, you'll permanently damage your brain."
c
Favorable mention of █████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ███████████ ████████
(C) targets the gap between remaining an effective advertising vehicle and acting in advertisers' interests by suggesting (when negated) that advertisers might be perfectly happy selling out the magazine's credibility for a short-term burst of product placement revenue. Here's (C) negated:
[Favorable mentions] are of more value than is the continued effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle.
Sure, product placement might make this magazine's reputation tank, but they'll just switch to a different magazine. In this world, the author's conclusion – that product placement cuts against the advertisers' interests – is kaput.
d
Giving favorable mention ██ █ ███████ ██ █ ████████ ███████ ██ █ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ █████████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ █████████
Mostly (D) is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, where both parties treat favorable mentions as being at least a little bit effective and the logic is much more focused on the reputational effects of running a product placement strategy. But it's also worth noting that (D) pushes in the wrong direction – it strengthens the argument when negated. Loosely-negated (D):
Favorable mentions are less effective than explicit advertisements.
If that's true, then in a broad sense it actually helps the editor's case – it's another factor indicating that the favorable mentions strategy won't pan out for the advertisers.
e
Carrying paid advertisements ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████
(E) is best understood as a trap answer for people mixing up the whole negation thing: right answers in necessary assumption questions need to kill the argument when negated. (E) just straight up kills the argument: it says there is no possibility at all that running these favorable mentions will affect the magazine's reputation for integrity (and by extension the loyalty of its readers, and by extension its effectiveness as an advertising vehicle).
In short, (E) says don't worry about it literally nothing bad could possibly happen.