You said that you were thinking that if an advertisement is strengthened it can be misleading. I think you're thinking about it in the wrong way. The way you're thinking about it is from the perspective of a company that believes that if it creates misleading advertising then it will be more likely to sell whatever it's selling.
This isn't the right way of interpreting what's going on. The way the question is wanting you to look at the advertisement is from the lens of a critical thinker who is outside of the company.
Here's an example (from Prep Test 7, Section 4, #4):
Stimulus:
Our tomato soup provides good nutrition: for instance, a warm bowl of it contains more units of vitamin C than does a serving of apricots or fresh carrots!
Prompt:
The advertisement is misleading if which one of the following is true?
Do you see how the prompt is asking us to pick an answer choice that would make the stimulus misleading, and therefore weaken the advertisement? The presumption is that if it's misleading, then it's a worse advertisement because we're looking at it from the lens of a critic.
On this particular question, the correct answer choice is
(E), which says, "Apricots and fresh carrots are widely known to be nutritious, but their contribution consists primarily in providing a large amount of vitamin A, not a large amount of vitamin C."
Do you see how (E) weakens the stimulus? It attacks the argument by adding a premise that adds a caveat to the existing one. If apricots and fresh carrots are known to be nutritious for their vitamin A and do not have much vitamin C, then the tomato soup might also not have much vitamin C, so it could very well not be that nutritious. This casts doubt on the conclusion, thereby weakening the argument.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
