Advertisers are often criticized for their unscrupulous manipulation of people's tastes and wants. There is evidence,...

Mehran on August 19, 2018

Hi @EmilyMarieMenendez, thanks for your post.

This stimulus presents an argument, the conclusion of which is that the advertisers who withdrew must have done so "because they morally disapproved of publishing salacious material."

This is a poor argument. The stimulus tells you that the publication shifted its focus from being a family newspaper to concentrating on sex and violence. Imagine if you were a company that previous advertised in a publication that focused on the family - for example, that you advertised for children's toys. Wouldn't your product sales decline if you continued to advertise for children's toys in a new publication that focused on adult themes like sex and violence? Probably.

The question stem asks you to strengthen this argument. This means you need to bolster the cause posited by the claim in the stimulus - that is, that the advertisers really did withdraw because of moral objections. Answer choice (C) does this, because it says that if the advertisers had stayed with the newspaper, they would have made MORE money, not less (unlike my analysis above). If (C) is correct, it means that the advertisers turned down more money and pursued their decision to stop advertising in the newspaper for moral rather than financial reasons. This, in turn, strengthens the claim in the stimulus.

Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

EmilyMarieMenendez on August 19, 2018

Makes perfect sense! Can't believe that one went over my head. Thank you!