MediaCritic: Network executives allege that television viewe

[JbhB682]

Source : Manhattan - All the verbal guide 2019. Page 297

MediaCritic: Network executives allege that television viewership is decreasing due to the availability of television programs on other platforms, such as the internet and mobile devices. These executives claim that declining viewership will cause advertising revenue to fall and networks will thus be unable to spend the large sums necessary to produce high quality programming. That development, in turn, will lead to a death of programming for the very devices that cannibalized television audience. However, research shows that users of alternative platforms are exposed to new programs and, as a result, actually increase the numbers of hours per week that they watch television. This demonstrates that alternative platforms will not prevent networks from increasing advertising revenue.

The portions in boldface play which of the following roles in the media critic's argument ?


(A) The first is an inevitable trend that weighs against the critic's claim; the second is the claim.

(B) The first is a prediction that is challenged by the argument; the second is a finding upon which the argument depends.

(C) The first clarifies the reasoning behind the critic' s claim; the second demonstrates why that claim is flawed.

(D) The first acknowledges a position that the technology executives accept as true; the second is a consequence of that position.

(E) The first opposes the critic's claim through an analogy; the second outlines a scenario in which that claim will not hold.

[JbhB682]

Question on Bold Face 2 specifically.

Why is bold face 2 considered a premise on behalf of MediaCritic ?

I thought this was a conclusion (on behalf of MediaCritic) given bold face 2 begins with the words "As a Result"

If i read the OA -- Bold face 2 is considered a premise.

Is that perhaps because Bold face 2 is really an intermediate conclusion and the final sentence specifically (This demonstrates that alternative platforms will not prevent networks from increasing advertising revenue) is the final conclusion of MediaCritic

Thank you !

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Remember that, when looking for the conclusion in an argument, we're looking for the main conclusion. This is the main claim that is being made, the point at which the person making the argument hits their fist down on the table. Here, that's the final sentence. Hence it can't be the second bold sentence. Sure, the words 'as a result' often indicate the main conclusion, but beware! Don't go onto autopilot, as GMAT problems love to be devious and surprise you. Here, 'as a result' is describing one of the findings of the research, presented here as a fact and consequently definitely not a claim or conclusion.

[JbhB682]

Source : Manhattan - All the verbal guide 2019. Page 297

MediaCritic: Network executives allege that television viewership is decreasing due to the availability of television programs on other platforms, such as the internet and mobile devices. These executives claim that declining viewership will cause advertising revenue to fall and networks will thus be unable to spend the large sums necessary to produce high quality programming. That development, in turn, will lead to a death of programming for the very devices that cannibalized television audience.

Hi Experts - Just wondering if my de-construction of the first three sentences in the argument is accurate.

I understand that all of these three sentences are in reference to Network executives only (Not the MediaCritic)

Blue - This sentence has the word "Allege". I believe this sentence is a claim -- However, I don't believe this claim is a premise specifically. It seems like this claim is more like background information as it doesn't support the Network executive's conclusion

My take-away from this is -- Claims can be background information / premises or conclusions

Green - I see the word "Claim" so I wrote this to be a claim. However, I don't believe this sentence is a premise to the conclusion. Thoughts if you believe this is a premise for the Network executive's conclusion ? It just seems like a FYI to me and it really is not a premise to the next statement.

Purple - Final conclusion of the Network executives.

[esledge]

Blue - This sentence has the word "Allege". I believe this sentence is a claim -- However, I don't believe this claim is a premise specifically. It seems like this claim is more like background information as it doesn't support the Network executive's conclusion

My take-away from this is -- Claims can be background information / premises or conclusions

Blue is a claim that is a premise (because it's not the last claim in the logic chain). It's not background info, because it actually does affect the argument (if you toss out the first claim, doing so weakens all the others made by the Network Execs). In contrast, background info tends to be very, very basic facts (location, dates, definitions of terms).

Green - I see the word "Claim" so I wrote this to be a claim. However, I don't believe this sentence is a premise to the conclusion. Thoughts if you believe this is a premise for the Network executive's conclusion ? It just seems like a FYI to me and it really is not a premise to the next statement.

Yep, this is a claim made by the Network Execs...which is later contradicted by the Media Critic. For this reason, we would call the Media Critic's claim the conclusion, and call the green text a counterpremise (which happens to be an opinion/claim itself).

Purple - Final conclusion of the Network executives.

Yep, I'd say so, too. Note that both green and purple contrast with the later claim by the MediaCritic, so they both can be considered counterpremises. What matters most in an argument is the relationship of each piece to the MAIN conclusion. When in doubt, I ask "does this help/agree, hurt/disagree, or do nothing to the main conclusion?"