Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.

Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.

Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware.	What it says: Kitchen magazine wants to put its name on cookware products What it does: Sets up the business scenario we're analyzing What it is: Author's background information
For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reduction in circulation and advertising.	What it says: When magazines license their names, bad products can hurt the magazine's reputation and reduce sales/ads What it does: Explains the risk that connects to Kitchen's licensing plan What it is: Author's general principle Visualization: Magazine licenses name → Bad product disappoints 1000 customers → Magazine loses reputation → Loses 200 subscribers + $50,000 in ads
However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen.	What it says: Experts tested the cookware and say it's better than any other cookware the magazine advertises What it does: Presents evidence that counters the licensing risk mentioned before What it is: Expert evaluation/study finding
Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fees without endangering its other revenues.	What it says: Kitchen can make money from licensing without hurting its magazine business What it does: Draws the final conclusion based on the expert evaluation What it is: Author's main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by explaining a general business risk (licensing can hurt magazine reputation), then presents specific evidence (expert evaluation showing superior quality), and concludes that this evidence eliminates the risk in Kitchen's case.

Main Conclusion:

Kitchen magazine can collect licensing fees from the cookware deal without putting its other revenue streams at risk.

Logical Structure:

The argument assumes that because experts found the cookware superior to other advertised products, consumers won't be disappointed. This creates a logical gap - we need to assume that expert opinions predict consumer satisfaction, and that being better than advertised competitors means the cookware won't disappoint consumers overall.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the argument takes for granted. Something that must be true for the conclusion to logically follow from the evidence.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes precise claims about expert evaluation (superior to ALL other cookware advertised in Kitchen) and about the outcome (can collect fees WITHOUT endangering other revenues). The conclusion is absolute - no danger at all.

Strategy

To find assumptions, we need to identify ways the conclusion could fail even though the facts are true. The argument jumps from 'experts say cookware is superior to other advertised cookware' to 'no risk to magazine revenues.' We need to find the gaps in this logic - what must be true for this jump to work?

Answer Choices Explained

No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.

This goes too far beyond what we need. The argument only requires that the Kitchen cookware won't disappoint consumers enough to hurt the magazine's reputation. Even if some other cookware exists that's superior, as long as Kitchen's cookware meets consumer expectations, the licensing deal won't endanger other revenues. The argument doesn't need to assume Kitchen's cookware is the absolute best in the world.

Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.

The argument's scope is specifically about this one cookware licensing deal. Whether Kitchen licenses its name for other products in the future is completely irrelevant to whether this particular cookware deal will endanger other revenues. The conclusion only addresses the safety of this specific licensing arrangement.

Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.

This hits a critical gap in the argument. Kitchen currently has 'other revenues' including advertising revenue from various cookware makers. But if Kitchen puts its name on cookware, those other cookware companies might stop advertising in the magazine because Kitchen's name is now associated with their competitor. This would directly threaten Kitchen's advertising revenue, making the conclusion false. The argument must assume this won't happen for the conclusion to work.

Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.

This addresses whether the licensing deal will be profitable, but the argument's conclusion isn't about maximizing profits from licensing. It's about collecting licensing fees without endangering other revenues. Even if non-readers aren't attracted to the Kitchen name, as long as the cookware doesn't disappoint consumers and hurt the magazine's reputation, other revenues remain safe.

Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.

The argument doesn't need Kitchen to be among the most prestigious magazines. The logic works as long as Kitchen has some reputation worth protecting and some existing revenue streams that could be endangered by consumer disappointment. The relative prestige compared to other cooking magazines is irrelevant to whether this licensing deal will endanger Kitchen's other revenues.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...