Fact 1: Television advertising is becoming less effective: the proportion of brand names promoted on television that viewers of the...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Fact 1: Television advertising is becoming less effective: the proportion of brand names promoted on television that viewers of the advertising can recall is slowly decreasing.

Fact 2: Television viewers recall commercials aired first or last in a cluster of consecutive commercials far better than they recall commercials aired somewhere in the middle.

Fact 2 would be most likely to contribute to an explanation of fact 1 if which of the following were also true?

The average television viewer currently recalls fewer than half the brand names promoted in commercials he or she saw.

The total time allotted to the average cluster of consecutive television commercials is decreasing.

The average number of hours per day that people spend watching television is decreasing.

The average number of clusters of consecutive commercials per hour of television is increasing.

The average number of television commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials is increasing.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Television advertising is becoming less effective: the proportion of brand names promoted on television that viewers of the advertising can recall is slowly decreasing.	What it says: TV ads aren't working as well - fewer people remember the brand names they see advertised What it does: Sets up the main problem that needs explaining What it is: Author's observation about advertising trends Visualization: If 100 people watch TV ads today, maybe only 30 remember brand names vs. 50 people remembering them a few years ago
Television viewers recall commercials aired first or last in a cluster of consecutive commercials far better than they recall commercials aired somewhere in the middle.	What it says: People remember the first and last ads in a group much better than the ones stuck in the middle What it does: Provides a specific finding about how memory works with TV ads that could help explain the declining effectiveness What it is: Research finding about viewer memory patterns Visualization: In a block of 5 commercials, viewers clearly remember ads #1 and #5, but ads #2, #3, and #4 are mostly forgotten

Argument Flow:

We start with an observed problem - TV advertising effectiveness is declining. Then we get a specific research finding about how people's memory works with commercials. The question asks us to find what additional condition would make this memory research help explain the declining effectiveness.

Main Conclusion:

There isn't really a main conclusion here - this passage presents two separate facts and asks us to connect them logically.

Logical Structure:

This is a 'connect the dots' setup. We have Fact 1 (problem) and Fact 2 (potential explanation), but we need to find the missing link that would make Fact 2 actually explain Fact 1. The logic would be: if something about commercial clustering has changed over time, then the memory pattern from Fact 2 could explain why overall recall is decreasing.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Paradox - We need to find what additional information would help Fact 2 (first/last position memory advantage) explain Fact 1 (declining TV ad effectiveness)

Precision of Claims

Fact 1 involves frequency/trend (slowly decreasing recall), Fact 2 involves quality/positioning (better recall for first/last vs middle positions)

Strategy

We need to connect the memory advantage of first/last positions to the overall decline in effectiveness. For Fact 2 to explain Fact 1, we need something that shows how the current advertising environment prevents ads from benefiting from the first/last position advantage, or how more ads are ending up in the poorly-remembered middle positions.

Answer Choices Explained

The average television viewer currently recalls fewer than half the brand names promoted in commercials he or she saw.

This tells us about current recall levels (fewer than half of brand names are remembered) but doesn't help connect Fact 2 to Fact 1. We already know from Fact 1 that recall is declining - this choice just gives us a snapshot of current performance without explaining how the first/last position advantage relates to the declining trend. It doesn't address changes in commercial structure that would make Fact 2 relevant to explaining Fact 1.

The total time allotted to the average cluster of consecutive television commercials is decreasing.

This suggests clusters are getting shorter in total time, but this doesn't necessarily help Fact 2 explain Fact 1. Shorter time clusters could mean fewer commercials (which would actually help recall by reducing middle positions) or just faster commercials. Either way, this doesn't create a clear mechanism for how the first/last memory advantage would explain declining effectiveness.

The average number of hours per day that people spend watching television is decreasing.

People watching less TV overall doesn't connect the memory pattern from Fact 2 to the effectiveness decline in Fact 1. Even if people watch fewer hours, the first/last position advantage should still work the same way during the time they do watch. This choice addresses quantity of viewing time, not the structural changes in commercial presentation that would make Fact 2 explanatory.

The average number of clusters of consecutive commercials per hour of television is increasing.

More clusters per hour means commercial breaks are more frequent, but this doesn't help Fact 2 explain Fact 1. If anything, more frequent clusters might help recall by creating more first and last positions. This choice goes in the wrong direction for connecting our two facts - it would suggest improvement, not decline, in recall effectiveness.

The average number of television commercials in a cluster of consecutive commercials is increasing.

CORRECT - If the average number of commercials within each cluster is increasing, then we have a direct connection between Facts 1 and 2. Larger clusters mean proportionally more ads are stuck in the poorly-remembered middle positions, while only the first and last spots maintain good recall. As clusters grow from, say, 3 ads to 7 ads, the percentage of ads in prime first/last positions drops from 67% to 29%. This structural change in commercial presentation would cause exactly the declining effectiveness described in Fact 1, making Fact 2 a perfect explanation for the trend.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...