Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular advertisers have been pressuring us to give favorable mention to ...

on July 24, 2020

I would like to know as well

shunhe on July 28, 2020

Hey everyone,

Thanks for the question! So let’s recap the magazine editor’s argument first. We’re basically being told that some advertisers want the magazine to give favorable mention to their products in the articles, but the magazine editor thinks that this would be against their interests (which is the conclusion). Why? Because the magazine needs loyal readership to stay an effective advertising vehicle, and if the readers thought that the magazine was pandering to advertisers, they’d lose the loyal readership.

Now we’re looking for a necessary assumption in this argument. Let’s take a look at (C), which tells us that favorable mention of their products in the magazines articles is of less value to the advertisers than is the continued effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle. Using the negation test on this, we’d get that favorable mention of their products in the magazines articles isn’t of less value to the advertisers than is the continued effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle. Well, if this is the case, then the argument falls apart! Remember that the conclusion is that favored advertising would be against the advertisers’ interests. But if the advertisers care more about having a favorable mention than about the continued effectiveness of the magazine, then it wouldn’t be against their interests. Negating (C) destroys the argument, and so (C) is the necessary assumption and the correct answer.??(B), on the other hand, tells us that the magazine can’t give any favorable mention in its articles to its regular advertisers without compromising its reputation for editorial integrity. Well, we should already be wary because of the word “any.” Let’s negate this: the magazine can give at least one favorable mention in its articles to its regular advertisers without compromising its reputation for editorial integrity. Well, if this is true, is the argument weakened? No, not really. Just because they can run one or two advertisements without compromising its reputation doesn’t mean that the argument doesn’t hold overall. Maybe the readers won’t care about one or two, but care once it starts becoming noticeable. Or maybe they don’t care if its actually advertisements for one certain product they want, but otherwise, they do care. The argument still stands with the negation of (B), and so (B) can’t be the necessary assumption and is incorrect.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.