The television network's advertisement for its new medical drama grossly misrepresents what that program is like. Thu...

Kim on January 18, 2015

Please explain

Please explain this question

1 Reply

Melody on January 19, 2015

Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.

The conclusion is: it will not as effectively attract the sort of viewers likely to continue watching the program as would the advertisement that the program's producers favored.

Why? We are told that the television network's advertisement for its new medical drama grossly misrepresents what the program is like. And we are told that people who tune in to the first episode with a false expectation will be unlikely to watch subsequent episodes.

Answer choice (B): "The advertisement that the program's producers favored would not have grossly misrepresented what the program would be like."

Does this strengthen? Yes.

The conclusion ultimately states that the advertisement that the program's producers favored would have more effectively attracted the sort of viewers likely to continue watching the program as will the television network's advertisement.

But, why?

We know that the television network's advertisement's issue is that it misrepresents what the program is like. But, do we know what the advertisement that the program's producers favored is like? Does that also misrepresent? And if so, then isn't this a moot point?

Answer choice (B) combats this by explaining that the advertisement favored by the program's producers would not--as the television network's advertisement is--grossly misrepresent what the program is like. Thus, (B) strengthens.

Negation: The advertisement that the program's producers favored would have grossly misrepresented what the program would be like.

Does the negation make the argument fall apart? Yes.

This is what we touched upon above. The argument tries to prove that the advertisement that the program's producers favored is better because the one that the television network went with grossly misrepresents what the program is like.

However, if the one that the program's producers favored also grossly misrepresents what the program is like, then the entire argument is pointless, since both advertisements make the same error--rendering neither of them better than the other based on the information we have.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.