Loading...
Drug Manufacturer : Television audiences are sure to realize that the "physician" recommending our brand of cough syrup in our advertisement is actually an actor playing a role. Hence they will not place undue trust in the advice given by this actor. Therefore, networks should relax their guidelines to permit our company to broadcast this advertisement.
Television Executive : If the audience can tell that the actor is not a physician, then your advertisement need not have a physician figure recommending your product.
Which of the following is an argumentative strategy used by the television executive in response to the drug manufacturer?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Television audiences are sure to realize that the "physician" recommending our brand of cough syrup in our advertisement is actually an actor playing a role. |
|
| Hence they will not place undue trust in the advice given by this actor. |
|
| Therefore, networks should relax their guidelines to permit our company to broadcast this advertisement. |
|
| If the audience can tell that the actor is not a physician, then your advertisement need not have a physician figure recommending your product. |
|
The drug manufacturer builds a case that their misleading ad should be allowed by arguing audiences won't be fooled. The TV executive responds by pointing out a logical flaw - if audiences can tell it's fake, then there's no reason to use a doctor character in the first place.
The drug manufacturer concludes that networks should allow their physician-actor advertisement to air because audiences will recognize it's just an actor.
The TV executive uses a strategy of pointing out internal inconsistency in the manufacturer's argument. The executive shows that if the manufacturer's premise is true (audiences can tell it's an actor), then their choice to use a physician figure becomes unnecessary and contradictory to their own logic.
Misc. - This is asking us to identify the argumentative strategy or technique used by the television executive in their response to the drug manufacturer.
The manufacturer claims audiences will recognize the actor isn't a real physician and won't place undue trust, therefore networks should allow the ad. The executive questions why use a physician figure at all if audiences can tell it's fake.
We need to analyze what the television executive is doing rhetorically. The executive takes the manufacturer's own premise (audiences can tell it's an actor) and uses it to question the entire approach. This is a classic argumentative move where you accept someone's premise but show it leads to a different conclusion than they intended.
This perfectly describes the television executive's strategy. The executive shows that the manufacturer's reasoning contains a fundamental contradiction. The manufacturer says audiences won't be fooled by the fake physician (their reason for allowing the ad), but this conflicts with why they want to use a physician figure in the first place (to gain credibility and trust). If people really can tell it's an actor, then using a physician image serves no legitimate purpose, which undermines the manufacturer's entire argument. The executive exposes this logical inconsistency beautifully.
While the drug manufacturer is certainly motivated by self-interest, the television executive doesn't focus on attacking their motives or questioning whether they genuinely care about the audience. The executive's response is much more strategic - they're pointing out a logical flaw rather than questioning the manufacturer's sincerity or motivations.
The executive doesn't invoke subjective opinions about audience reactions. In fact, the executive accepts the manufacturer's claim about audience awareness and uses it against them. The response is based on logical reasoning rather than presenting opinions as evidence.
The executive doesn't discuss differing goals between the manufacturer and networks. Their response focuses specifically on the internal contradiction in the manufacturer's argument rather than highlighting conflicting interests between the two parties.
The executive doesn't challenge the manufacturer's ability to make generalizations about audience behavior. Instead, the executive actually accepts the manufacturer's generalization about audience awareness and uses it to expose the logical flaw in their argument.