Social observer: Advertising agencies are willfully neglecting the most profitable segment of the market: older adult...

Ravi on April 30, 2020

@avif,

Let's take a look at (B), (D), and (E).

In looking at the argument in the stimulus, we see that there is new
information provided to us in the conclusion. We have the concept of
maximizing profits appearing in the conclusion, but nowhere else.
Maximizing profits isn't discussed anywhere else in the stimulus. All
we know are that the older adults ar the most profitable segment of
the market. However, even if the older adults are the most profitable
demographic, there are a lot of potential reasons why targeting
younger generations could help ad agencies maximize their clients'
profits (maybe the older adults spend their money on the younger
adults).

This is the gap that we're looking to plug in this argument. We want
to connect the concept in the conclusion to one of the premises in the
argument. We know that the person wants ad companies to target older
adults and the primary premise we get about the older adults is that
they control more of the nation's personal income than does the rest
of the population combined. Thus, the correct answer will likely say
something like

target the older adults who control more personal income than
everybody else combined-->ag agencies will maximize their clients'
profits

(B) says, "No company can maximize its profits unless it markets its
products primarily to a population segment that controls most of this
nation’s personal disposable income."

Diagramming (B), we get

doesn't market products to people who control almost of the nation's
disposable personal income-->will not maximize clients' profits

This is the inverse of what we're looking for. We need to show that
advertising to these people WILL result in profit maximization, not
that avoiding them will not maximize profits, so (B) is out.

(D) says, "No advertising agency that tailors its advertisements
mainly to an audience that does not control much of this nation’s
personal disposable income will maximize its clients’ profits."

If we diagram this, we get

target audience that doesn't control much of the nation's personal
disposable income-->won't maximize clients' profits

This basically says the same thing as (B) (it's the inverse of what we
want), so it's out.

(E) says, "Any advertising agency that gears its advertisements mainly
to a population segment that controls 50 percent or more of this
nation’s personal disposable income will maximize its clients’
profits."

If we diagram (E), we get

targets a population that controls 50% or more of the nation's
personal disposable income-->maximizes clients' profits

This is a tad bit different from our anticipation, but it does work to
close the gap between the premises and the conclusion of the argument,
making the argument valid. We know that older adults control more of
the nation's personal disposable income than everybody else combined.
This means that they control over half of the nation's personal
disposable income. So, if we add (E) to the stimulus, targeting older
adults will allow ad companies to maximize their clients' profits.
Thus, (E) is correct.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

avif on May 1, 2020

Yes! Thanks so much. I was confused between B and D because they were the same thing and you pointed out that they actually are the same thing. I didn't even consider E because of the interesting language but now that you explained it, it makes sense.

Ravi on May 3, 2020

@avif, happy to hear the explanation helped. Keep up the great work!