"People Meters", new devices attached to a relatively small sample of TV sets to determine how many viewers watch programs,...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

"People Meters", new devices attached to a relatively small sample of TV sets to determine how many viewers watch programs, show smaller audiences for programs on the major television networks than did the previously used methods of telephone surveys and viewer diaries. Network officials argue that the lower number result from the fact that the people meters, which are located primarily in private homes, fail to take account of many young adults who regularly watch those programs in college dormitories and at military bases.

The network officials' argument depends on which of the following assumption?

People meters have been installed primarily on TV sets belonging to persons whose viewing habits were monitored in the past through telephone surveys and viewer dairies.

Those programs for which people meters have found smaller audiences than did the previously used sampling methods are watched almost entirely by young adults.

The previously used method of measuring TV audiences more adequately allowed for the viewers in college dormitories ad at military bases.

The households where people meters are located will have to be changed over time, as people drop out of the sample and others replace them.

As a group, young adults maintain an intense loyalty to the same few televised program.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
"People Meters", new devices attached to a relatively small sample of TV sets to determine how many viewers watch programs, show smaller audiences for programs on the major television networks than did the previously used methods of telephone surveys and viewer diaries.	What it says: New People Meters show lower viewership numbers for major TV networks compared to old methods like phone surveys and viewer diaries What it does: Sets up a puzzle - why are the new devices showing different (lower) results than the old methods? What it is: Factual observation about measurement difference Visualization: Old methods: 100 viewers, New People Meters: 70 viewers (30% drop in measured audience)
Network officials argue that the lower number result from the fact that the people meters, which are located primarily in private homes, fail to take account of many young adults who regularly watch those programs in college dormitories and at military bases.	What it says: Network officials blame the lower numbers on People Meters missing viewers in dorms and military bases since the devices are mainly in private homes What it does: Provides the network's explanation for the measurement difference we just learned about What it is: Network officials' explanation/argument Visualization: Private homes with People Meters: 70 viewers measured, Dorms + Military bases (no meters): 30+ viewers missed = Actually 100+ total viewers

Argument Flow:

The passage starts with an observation that new measurement devices show lower TV viewership than old methods. Then network officials offer their explanation for why this happened - the new devices miss certain viewing locations.

Main Conclusion:

The lower viewership numbers from People Meters are explained by their failure to count viewers in dorms and military bases.

Logical Structure:

The network officials use a causal explanation: People Meters are located primarily in private homes → They miss viewers in dorms and military bases → This causes the lower numbers we're seeing. The logic assumes the 'missed' viewers are significant enough to explain the difference.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to identify what the network officials must believe to be true for their argument to work. Their argument is that People Meters show lower numbers because they miss young adults in dorms and military bases.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve quantity (how many viewers), location (private homes vs dorms/military bases), and demographic groups (young adults). The network officials are making a specific claim about WHERE the missing viewers are and WHO they are.

Strategy

For assumption questions, we look for ways the conclusion could fall apart while keeping the facts intact. The network officials claim People Meters miss viewers in dorms/military bases, explaining the lower numbers. We need to think: what must be true for this explanation to work? What could make their reasoning collapse?

Answer Choices Explained

People meters have been installed primarily on TV sets belonging to persons whose viewing habits were monitored in the past through telephone surveys and viewer dairies.

This choice discusses where People Meters are installed and whether those same people were monitored before. However, the network officials' argument isn't about WHO is being monitored - it's about WHERE the monitoring happens (missing dorms and military bases). Whether the same individuals were tracked before doesn't address why People Meters show lower numbers than old methods. This doesn't connect to their core explanation.

Those programs for which people meters have found smaller audiences than did the previously used sampling methods are watched almost entirely by young adults.

This makes an extreme claim that programs with smaller audiences are watched 'almost entirely' by young adults. But the network officials never claimed young adults are the primary audience - just that missing them in dorms and military bases explains the lower numbers. The officials' argument works even if young adults are just a significant portion, not nearly the entire audience. This goes beyond what their argument requires.

The previously used method of measuring TV audiences more adequately allowed for the viewers in college dormitories ad at military bases.

This is exactly what the network officials must assume. Their entire explanation hinges on the idea that old methods captured viewers that People Meters miss. If the old methods (phone surveys and viewer diaries) also failed to count dorm and military base viewers, then there's no reason People Meters would show lower numbers. The officials' argument completely depends on the old methods being better at reaching these locations.

The households where people meters are located will have to be changed over time, as people drop out of the sample and others replace them.

This discusses sample maintenance and people dropping out over time. This is about operational logistics of running the survey, but it doesn't relate to the network officials' specific explanation about missing viewers in dorms and military bases. Their argument about location-based undercounting doesn't depend on sample turnover procedures.

As a group, young adults maintain an intense loyalty to the same few televised program.

This suggests young adults are loyal to specific programs. But the network officials' argument isn't about viewer loyalty or program preferences - it's about measurement methodology failing to reach certain locations. Whether young adults stick with the same shows or switch around doesn't impact whether People Meters can count them in dorms and military bases.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...