Q22 - Magazine editor: I know that

[sheffieldjordan]

I can't for the life of me figure out this question!

The correct answer is (d), "because the editor's argument does not depend on any assumption about the readers' response to the adverts..."

But doesn't the editor's argument depend on the assumption that the readers will have a negative response to the new advertisements, thereby leading them to question the editorial integrity of the magazine?

I have tried to look at this question over the past few days and bend my mind around why (d) is correct, but I still cannot do it.

Can anyone please help?!

[bbirdwell]

But doesn't the editor's argument depend on the assumption that the readers will have a negative response to the new advertisements, thereby leading them to question the editorial integrity of the magazine?

Nope. The editor's arguments depends on the readers response to articles, not advertisements.

Notice how the editor basically says "we can't talk about your products in our articles because readers will question our integrity."

Then the other guy says "readers know that our ads are not articles."

He totally misses the point. It's not about readers thinking that ads are articles (this is an "assumption about readers' response to ads"), it's about readers seeing products in articles and thinking that the magazine has no integrity.

See the difference?

[gotomedschool]

Can you explain why E is wrong and what the difference between E and D is?

I knew that the response failed and I knew it was for the exact reason you mentioned but I couldn't figure out which one between D and E was describing the mistake the adverstising director makes.

I thought it was E because to me, the advertising director "misunderstands" the editors view by not differentiating between Advertisments on the spare pages of the magazine vs. an article that is basically a plug for an advertisement. The magazine editor doesn't want to plug ads into the articles because he believes that will lower the integrity of the magazine then the director responds by saying people can tell the difference between advertismenets and articles.

yeah anyways i got confused here lol

[willaminic]

E is wrong because it states "readers respond to advertisements they see" Editor did not talk about advertisements, he is talking about how the readership loyality will go down if we put ads in the articles. It is totally two different things.

Am i explaining right? This is a very tricky question.

[goriano]

Can you explain why E is wrong and what the difference between E and D is?

I knew that the response failed and I knew it was for the exact reason you mentioned but I couldn't figure out which one between D and E was describing the mistake the adverstising director makes.

I thought it was E because to me, the advertising director "misunderstands" the editors view by not differentiating between Advertisments on the spare pages of the magazine vs. an article that is basically a plug for an advertisement. The magazine editor doesn't want to plug ads into the articles because he believes that will lower the integrity of the magazine then the director responds by saying people can tell the difference between advertismenets and articles.

yeah anyways i got confused here lol

I eliminated (E) because it says the advertising-sales director MISUNDERSTANDS the magazine editor's VIEW about how readers respond to ADVERTISEMENTS. The problem with this answer choice is that the magazine editor never has a viewpoint on how readers respond to advertisements. He/she never even uses the word ADVERTISEMENTS (only advertisers, which is a related but completely different term). Another way of looking at it is how can the advertising-sales director misunderstand a view that the magazine editor didn't even make?

(D) gets it right with the part about "does not depend on ANY assumption about readers' response to the advertisements."

[nflamel69]

Do these type of assessment questions appear at all in recent tests? (40 -63) I suck at these, I can never decide whether they succeed or not, any hints?

[timmydoeslsat]

I would say that assessment questions are not common at all. It may have the same frequency as it has always had, which is rare.

But this one is not hard to see at all. Like Brian said, notice that the magazine editor is discussing favorable mention of products in articles. These products being the ones produced by the regular advertisers.

The ad director says that readers know that ads are not articles.

But we ARE talking about articles and how even these would become pandering columns towards the latest commodity.

So the ad director is not addressing a response to advertisers.

Answer choice E has the fails part right. However, the editor's view is not about readers responding to advertisements.

[nicholasasquith]

This was a tough question! Breaking it down into its cores really helps.

Evaluate questions seem exceedingly time consuming, because unlike a typical flaw or describe the reasoning question, we aren't given any information whether or not the argument has a flaw, adding another element of work to an already lengthy passage.

I had it down to C and D myself, because I could see flaws in the magazine editor's argument initially, but it took me a close reading of the ACs to figure out what the sales-director was saying. Here were my thought processes

Magazine editor says:
(P) Our magazine needs loyal readership to be effective at advertising
(P) We'll lose loyal readership if our readers suspect our integrity has been compromised by pandering to advertisers.
(C) Promoting products in our articles will actually hurt the advertisers

The gap I see here is that he's assuming ads in articles will cause readers to be suspicious of the magazines editorial integrity. It's a reasonable assumption, but nevertheless, an assumption.

Ad-sales guy says:
(P) Readers can recognize that advertisements are not articles.
(SC) The way readers respond to ads is therefore, not dependent on the magazine's editorial integrity.
(C) You're underestimating the readers' sophistication.

I think this is a reasonable argument as well, the subsidiary conclusion makes sense, but the conclusion is a misunderstanding of the manager's claim, its not addressing his concern about people not reading the magazine anymore. Instead he's just telling us they'll respond to the ads independently of what they think of the magazine.

I definitely could not see this until I really analyzed the ACs. C seemed tempting at first, but really, there's a distinction between readers' conceptions of the magazine's integrity and readers' conceptions of the advertisements. This AC erroneously equivocates the sales-director's claim about readers' response to the ads as being the same thing as readers' conception of the magazine's integrity.

And..I think why C is incorrect is actually a great explanation for why D is correct. C might very well be what the sales-advertiser is thinking (the equivocation), and D is exposing the flaw in that.

Hope this helps

[robinzhang7]

Could a Geek go over this problem top to bottom? I have a hard time seeing how (D) is correct especially since it seems to be the opposite: the editor's argument explicitly deals with reader's response to ads in the magazine. The response to this seeing the ads within magazine articles is the loss of readership. Given that, how is (D) even remotely the correct answer?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, robinzhang7!

I think the primary thing that's throwing you off here is that you're missing a critical distinction between actual advertisements (and reader's responses to them) and the idea of mentioning products in the articles (and reader's responses to that practice). The editor isn't talking about actual advertisements at all! He's only talking about what will happen if they start loading up the articles with product placements!

As a result, the editor's argument depends on some assumptions about how readers will respond to 'product placements in articles', but it does not depend on any assumption about how readers respond to advertisements themselves.

I'd break this argument down from the top, but nicholasasquith did such an absolutely killer job above, I'm just going to steal his (bolding mine):

Magazine editor says:
(P) Our magazine needs loyal readership to be effective at advertising
(P) We'll lose loyal readership if our readers suspect our integrity has been compromised by pandering to advertisers.
(C) Promoting products in our articles will actually hurt the advertisers

The gap I see here is that he's assuming ads in articles will cause readers to be suspicious of the magazines editorial integrity. It's a reasonable assumption, but nevertheless, an assumption.

Ad-sales guy says:
(P) Readers can recognize that advertisements are not articles.
(SC) The way readers respond to ads is therefore, not dependent on the magazine's editorial integrity.
(C) You're underestimating the readers' sophistication.

The editor's point is essentially that once readers see a lot of product placement in articles, they'll just stop reading the magazine, and then they won't even see the advertisements. The director may well be right that the readers could still respond favorably to the ads, but if they aren't reading the magazine anymore, then it doesn't really matter!

As a result, his argument doesn't depend on any assumptions whatsoever about how readers respond to ads that they see, making (D) fit perfectly.

Let's take a look at each wrong answer choice:

(A) The only factor the editor points out as potentially affecting an advertisement's effectiveness is the existence of a loyal readership - in other words, we have to have readers in the first place for the ads to be effective. Not only is this pretty reasonable, it's also one of the editor's premises, not an assumption. Additionally, the director does not attempt to undermine this point!
(B) The director certainly claims that the readers are sophisticated enough to distinguish ad from article, but the editor never suggested they couldn't.
(C) This answer choice accurately reflects what the editor's argument is about: advertisers influencing articles. However, the director's argument doesn't touch on this at all.
(E) The editor has no view about how readers respond to advertisements - his entire argument is about how readers respond to product placement in articles!

Please let me know if that helped clear a few things up!

[a8l367]

Didn't get it.

ME:
Ads in articles => poor editorial integrity => non-loyal readers => not effective ads

ASD:
responce to ads [IMHO same as effective ads] does not depend on editorial integrity

So A wins.
Could someone explain?

[PepitoH577]

I understand the differences between both parties the magazine editor and the advertising sales director, but I still don't get the answer. Why the editor's argument doesn't depend on any assumption when he is assuming that their readers will suspect their editorial integrity if they mention advertisers products in their articles? What about if they do it in such a way that no one reader will suspect (like they do it all the time with subliminal messages) or if their readers don't care about it at all and keep reading the magazine anyway? Why is D formulated that way?

[PepitoH577]

Thanks for posting, robinzhang7!

I think the primary thing that's throwing you off here is that you're missing a critical distinction between actual advertisements (and reader's responses to them) and the idea of mentioning products in the articles (and reader's responses to that practice). The editor isn't talking about actual advertisements at all! He's only talking about what will happen if they start loading up the articles with product placements!

As a result, the editor's argument depends on some assumptions about how readers will respond to 'product placements in articles', but it does not depend on any assumption about how readers respond to advertisements themselves.

He is talking about ads. The argument says to remain an effective advertising vehicle we must have loyal readership and mention products in articles is another way to advertise also. Furthermore, he is assuming that readers will stop reading the magazine, so that's a response from the public of the magazine.

[MuuX533]

I understand the differences between both parties the magazine editor and the advertising sales director, but I still don't get the answer. Why the editor's argument doesn't depend on any assumption when he is assuming that their readers will suspect their editorial integrity if they mention advertisers products in their articles? What about if they do it in such a way that no one reader will suspect (like they do it all the time with subliminal messages) or if their readers don't care about it at all and keep reading the magazine anyway? Why is D formulated that way?

Thanks a lot! I have the same problem figuring out this question, and you really help me out.