Studies of the effect of viewers' involvement in television programs on their responses to commercials have produced varied conclusions. Some...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Studies of the effect of viewers' involvement in television programs on their responses to commercials have produced varied conclusions. Some researchers argue that a high level of program involvement inhibits viewer processing of commercial messages, a conclusion based primarily on the finding that viewers demonstrate better recall for commercial messages when program involvement is low. For example, Bryant found recall highest for a beverage commercial when it interrupted a minimally involving moving wave pattern, with recall decreasing somewhat when the commercial interrupted a moderately involving portion of an action-adventure show and falling substantially at the program's climax. Krugman, however, argues that the persuasive impact of commercials increases as interest in the program increases. Krugman found viewer attitudes toward a commercial sponsor to be less positive when commercials appeared during programs with "natural breaks" (talk-show and variety segments, assumed to be low-involvement) than when they appeared in an "interrupted context" (movies and documentaries, assumed to be high-involvement). Finally, Lord concluded that certain program content induces viewers to commit a large proportion of their attention to its processing, minimizing the efficiency with which they can process information conveyed by a commercial. This result appears to account for the recall effects observed in earlier studies such as Bryant's. Lord postulated that beginning a commercial with an attention- engaging device would moderate the expected impact of high program involvement.
Ques. 1/3
Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence highlighted in the context of the passage as a whole?
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Studies of the effect of viewers' involvement in television programs on their responses to commercials have produced varied conclusions. | What it says: Research on how much viewers care about TV shows affects how they respond to ads has shown different results. What it does: Sets up the topic and signals we'll see different viewpoints Source/Type: Author's summary of research landscape Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no prior connections Visualization: Research Results: Mixed/Varied (like a scatter plot with points going in different directions) What We Know So Far: There's disagreement about how TV program involvement affects commercial response What We Don't Know Yet: What the different conclusions are, who found what Reading Strategy Insight: This opener tells us to expect contrast and comparison - the passage will organize different viewpoints for us |
| Some researchers argue that a high level of program involvement inhibits viewer processing of commercial messages, a conclusion based primarily on the finding that viewers demonstrate better recall for commercial messages when program involvement is low. | What it says: One group of researchers thinks: when people are really into a TV show, they don't pay attention to commercials. Their proof: people remember commercials better when they're watching boring shows. What it does: Introduces the first specific viewpoint with its supporting evidence Source/Type: Researchers' argument and their evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: • This builds on sentence 1 by giving us the FIRST of those "varied conclusions" • This is new information - we're getting our first concrete example Visualization: High Program Involvement → Low Commercial Processing Low Program Involvement → High Commercial Recall (Inverse relationship) What We Know So Far: • Research shows mixed results • Viewpoint 1: High involvement in shows = worse commercial processing • Evidence: Better recall when involvement is low What We Don't Know Yet: Specific studies, other viewpoints, contradicting evidence Reading Strategy Insight: The phrase "Some researchers" signals this is just one view among several |
| For example, Bryant found recall highest for a beverage commercial when it interrupted a minimally involving moving wave pattern, with recall decreasing somewhat when the commercial interrupted a moderately involving portion of an action-adventure show and falling substantially at the program's climax. | What it says: Bryant's study showed people remembered a drink commercial best when it interrupted boring wave patterns, remembered it less during regular action scenes, and remembered it worst during exciting climax moments. What it does: Provides concrete example supporting the first researchers' argument Source/Type: Specific research finding (Bryant's study) Connection to Previous Sentences: • This is NOT new information - it's an example supporting sentence 2 • This makes the previous abstract claim concrete and easier to understand • The phrase "For example" directly signals this supports what we just learned Visualization: Wave Pattern (minimal involvement) → Highest Commercial Recall Action Scene (moderate involvement) → Medium Commercial Recall Climax Scene (high involvement) → Lowest Commercial Recall (Perfect descending pattern) What We Know So Far: • Research shows mixed results • Viewpoint 1: High show involvement = worse commercial processing • Bryant's study confirms this with clear evidence Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity. Bryant's example makes the abstract theory concrete and believable. |
| Krugman, however, argues that the persuasive impact of commercials increases as interest in the program increases. | What it says: Krugman disagrees - he thinks commercials work BETTER when people are more interested in the show. What it does: Introduces the opposing viewpoint Source/Type: Researcher's contrasting argument (Krugman's claim) Connection to Previous Sentences: • This contrasts directly with sentences 2-3 • The word "however" signals opposition • This gives us the SECOND of those "varied conclusions" from sentence 1 Visualization: Bryant's View: High Program Interest → Low Commercial Effect Krugman's View: High Program Interest → High Commercial Effect (Direct opposition) What We Know So Far: • Research shows mixed results (sentence 1 prediction coming true!) • Viewpoint 1 (Bryant): High involvement hurts commercials • Viewpoint 2 (Krugman): High involvement helps commercials What We Don't Know Yet: What evidence Krugman has Reading Strategy Insight: This is exactly what sentence 1 prepared us for - we're seeing the "varied conclusions" play out in an organized way |
| Krugman found viewer attitudes toward a commercial sponsor to be less positive when commercials appeared during programs with "natural breaks" (talk-show and variety segments, assumed to be low-involvement) than when they appeared in an "interrupted context" (movies and documentaries, assumed to be high-involvement). | What it says: Krugman's evidence: People liked commercial sponsors less when ads appeared during talk shows (low involvement) compared to during movies (high involvement). What it does: Provides supporting evidence for Krugman's opposing viewpoint Source/Type: Specific research finding (Krugman's study) Connection to Previous Sentences: • This supports sentence 4 the same way Bryant's example supported the first view • This follows the same pattern as Bryant's example - abstract claim followed by concrete evidence • We're seeing parallel structure: Theory → Example, Theory → Example Visualization: Low-Involvement Programs (talk shows) → Less Positive Sponsor Attitudes High-Involvement Programs (movies) → More Positive Sponsor Attitudes (This supports Krugman's theory perfectly) What We Know So Far: • Viewpoint 1 (Bryant): High involvement → worse commercial recall • Viewpoint 2 (Krugman): High involvement → better sponsor attitudes • Both have concrete evidence Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is giving us a fair, balanced presentation - each theory gets its supporting evidence. This creates understanding, not confusion. |
| Finally, Lord concluded that certain program content induces viewers to commit a large proportion of their attention to its processing, minimizing the efficiency with which they can process information conveyed by a commercial. | What it says: Lord found that some TV content makes viewers focus so much attention on the show that they can't efficiently process commercial information. What it does: Introduces a third researcher's conclusion Source/Type: Researcher's conclusion (Lord's finding) Connection to Previous Sentences: • The word "Finally" suggests this might be a concluding or synthesizing viewpoint • This actually sounds similar to the first viewpoint (Bryant) but uses different language • This gives us precise mechanism: attention competition between show and commercial Visualization: Viewer's Total Attention = 100% High Program Involvement: 80% on show, 20% left for commercial Low Program Involvement: 40% on show, 60% available for commercial What We Know So Far: • Three researchers, potentially two camps • Lord seems to agree with Bryant's direction • We have a clear mechanism: attention is limited What We Don't Know Yet: How this relates to the previous findings Reading Strategy Insight: "Finally" often signals summary or resolution - expect this to tie things together |
| This result appears to account for the recall effects observed in earlier studies such as Bryant's. | What it says: Lord's finding explains why Bryant found what he did about recall. What it does: Explicitly connects Lord's work to Bryant's findings Source/Type: Author's interpretation/connection Connection to Previous Sentences: • This is the author helping us see connections we might have missed • "This result" refers back to Lord's attention-competition finding • "Appears to account for" means Lord's theory explains Bryant's data • This confirms our suspicion that Lord and Bryant are in the same camp Visualization: Lord's Theory (attention competition) → Explains → Bryant's Results (recall patterns) Mechanism explains outcome What We Know So Far: • Two camps: Bryant+Lord vs. Krugman • Lord provides the underlying mechanism for Bryant's observations • The "varied conclusions" are really two main competing theories Reading Strategy Insight: The author is reducing complexity here - showing us that Lord and Bryant support each other rather than adding a third independent view |
| Lord postulated that beginning a commercial with an attention- engaging device would moderate the expected impact of high program involvement. | What it says: Lord suggested that if commercials start with something attention-grabbing, it could reduce the negative effects of high program involvement. What it does: Provides Lord's proposed solution to the problem Source/Type: Researcher's hypothesis/suggestion (Lord's postulation) Connection to Previous Sentences: • This builds on Lord's findings by offering a practical solution • This acknowledges the Bryant/Lord camp's findings but suggests a way to work around the problem • "Moderate the expected impact" refers to reducing the negative recall effects Visualization: Normal Commercial during High-Involvement Show: Poor recall Attention-Grabbing Commercial during High-Involvement Show: Better recall (Solution to the identified problem) What We Know So Far: • Two main camps with competing theories • Bryant+Lord: High involvement hurts commercial processing • Krugman: High involvement helps commercial effectiveness • Lord offers a potential solution to the problem his camp identified Reading Strategy Insight: This ending shows practical application - the research isn't just academic debate but has real implications for advertising strategy |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To present and organize different research findings about how viewers' involvement in TV programs affects their responses to commercials.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author walks us through competing research conclusions in an organized way:
- First, the author tells us that research on this topic has produced mixed results, setting up that we'll see different viewpoints.
- Next, the author presents the first camp of researchers who believe high program involvement hurts commercial processing, and gives Bryant's study as concrete evidence.
- Then, the author introduces Krugman's opposing view that high program involvement actually helps commercials, and provides his supporting evidence.
- Finally, the author presents Lord's research, which explains why the first camp's findings occur and offers a potential solution to the problem.
Main Point:
Researchers disagree about whether viewers being highly involved in TV programs helps or hurts commercial effectiveness, but the disagreement may be explained by different ways of measuring effectiveness - some focus on recall while others focus on attitudes, and the negative effects might be overcome with better commercial design.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify the function of the highlighted sentence within the context of the entire passage. Since no sentence is visually highlighted, I need to determine which sentence this refers to by analyzing the answer choices and passage structure.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Looking at the answer choices, particularly choice E which mentions "explanation for certain observations described earlier," this points to the sentence: "This result appears to account for the recall effects observed in earlier studies such as Bryant's."
From our passage analysis, I can see that:
- This sentence comes after Lord presents his attention-competition theory
- The passage analysis notes this is "the author helping us see connections we might have missed"
- The analysis shows this sentence "confirms our suspicion that Lord and Bryant are in the same camp"
- The visualization shows: "Lord's Theory (attention competition) → Explains → Bryant's Results (recall patterns)"
Prethinking:
Based on our passage analysis, this sentence serves as a bridge that connects Lord's theoretical finding (attention competition) to Bryant's empirical observations (recall patterns). The sentence doesn't introduce new data or make new claims—instead, it explains how Lord's mechanism accounts for what Bryant observed. This is a classic "explanation of earlier observations" function, making choice E the most likely correct answer.
Answer Choices Explained
A
It offers a generalization about certain types of studies discussed in the passage.
Why It's Wrong:
- This sentence is specific and targeted, not a broad generalization about study types
- It connects two specific researchers' work rather than making a general statement about categories of studies
- The passage analysis shows this is about "helping us see connections," not categorizing studies
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking "studies" in the sentence makes it a generalization about all studies?
→ Look at what the sentence actually does—it connects Lord's specific result to Bryant's specific findings, not all studies - Confusing a connection between specific studies with a broad categorization?
→ Focus on the precise function: explaining how one finding accounts for another's observations
B
It presents evidence that supports an assertion made in the preceding sentence.
Why It's Wrong:
- The sentence doesn't support the preceding sentence—it explains how Lord's findings relate to earlier work (Bryant's)
- The preceding sentence is about Lord's attention-engagement solution, while this sentence connects to Bryant's recall findings
- Our passage analysis shows this creates connections to earlier work, not supporting what immediately precedes it
Common Student Mistakes:
- Assuming "This result" refers to the immediately previous sentence?
→ "This result" refers to Lord's broader finding about attention competition, not just the last sentence about attention-engaging devices - Confusing temporal proximity with logical support?
→ The sentence looks backward to Bryant's work, not forward to support what was just said
C
It summarizes the prevailing interpretation of experimental results described earlier in the passage.
Why It's Wrong:
- There is no "prevailing interpretation" established in the passage—we have competing viewpoints
- The sentence doesn't summarize interpretations but explains how one researcher's mechanism accounts for another's observations
- Our passage analysis shows "two main competing theories," not one prevailing view
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking Bryant's findings represent the dominant view?
→ The passage presents Bryant and Krugman as having competing views, with no clear dominance indicated - Confusing an explanatory connection with a summary of prevailing thought?
→ This sentence creates a specific link between Lord and Bryant, not a broad summary
D
It introduces a theory that reconciles the views of two researchers mentioned earlier in the passage.
Why It's Wrong:
- Lord doesn't reconcile Bryant and Krugman—he supports Bryant's camp against Krugman
- The passage analysis shows "Lord and Bryant are in the same camp" rather than Lord being a mediator
- No synthesis or middle ground is presented; Lord explains why Bryant found what he did
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking any third researcher must be providing reconciliation?
→ Lord actually reinforces Bryant's position by providing the underlying mechanism - Confusing explanation of mechanism with reconciliation of opposing views?
→ Lord explains how Bryant's observations occur, but doesn't bridge to Krugman's contradictory findings
E
It provides a possible explanation for certain observations described earlier in the passage.
Why It's Right:
- The sentence explicitly states that Lord's result "appears to account for" Bryant's observations
- It provides the mechanism (attention competition) that explains the phenomena (recall effects) Bryant observed
- Our passage analysis confirms this creates understanding of "why Bryant found what he did"
- The sentence functions as an explanatory bridge between Lord's theoretical finding and Bryant's empirical observations
Key Evidence: "This result appears to account for the recall effects observed in earlier studies such as Bryant's." The phrase "appears to account for" directly indicates explanation of previously described observations.
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More