Q21

[jasonleb1]

They want a sentence that most logically completes the passage and I just can't see how it could be A (the correct answer).

I understand how the second part of A - that the Marcusian critique does not provide solid ground for proving that advertising is bad - is correct but I can't identify the first part (about how advertising may actually be detrimental to society) with the author's statements anywhere. The whole last paragraph of the passage seems to be devoted to the idea that advertising isn't that bad. Tacking a sentence to the end of that conceding that it may have negative effects doesn't seem to logically complete that idea at all, so A wasn't even on my radar when it came to choosing an answer.

I chose D. I can see how D is wrong since there's no mention of the benefits of advertising "clearly outweighing" the cons, despite the tone of the last paragraph but it seemed the least wrong of all the answer choices to me.

Can anyone help explain A?

[logicfiend]

It seems like you have a good understanding of the author's POV for understanding (A). I think you need to consider whether the passage at all supports the principle that advertising might be harmful to society.

The author is addressing very specifically Marcuse's views, not talking about the author's own views on advertising in general. He hasn't said that advertising is something good in society nor has he said that it's bad. He's only addressing the flaws in Marcuse's views.

He also says on lines 49-52, "It is no doubt true that in many—perhaps even most—cases the use of an advertised product does not yield the precise sort of emotional dividend that advertisements seem to promise." And then goes on to say why this shouldn't discount genuine fulfillment by ads.

The passage is a specific criticism of Marcuse's views, but he leaves room for whether it might be possible advertising could harm society, which is all the answer is saying. The first part of the AC isn't a very strong statement at all.

Every other AC is also not supportable:

B) out because of political gain, out of scope

C) "change in perception of human nature" is out of scope. The author didn't argue this was the issue with Marcuse's views.

D) numerous social benefits is not supportable. If anything, the passage may mention one benefit in there being some genuine fulfillment from advertised products, but I'm not even sure this would fall into a "social benefit."

E) exerting economic power is out of scope.

[snoopy]

Very confused on how lines 49-52 implies any detriment to society.

I know the answer choice mentioned that “while in principle, there MAY be grounds...detriment of society.” Can someone please elaborate how lines 49-52 (the only kind of concession in this passage) could be construed as a “principle” in A?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think people are just worrying too much about what's in between the commas in (A).

That claim is committing the author to almost nothing.

Every thinker in the universe either believes:
"In principle there might be grounds for holding that advertising is detrimental to society"
or believes
"There could not possibly be grounds for holding that advertising is detrimental to society".

None of us would adopt the 2nd point of view because of how harsh it is and how hard it would be to defend/support.

By contrast, the "double-comma" claims in (B) thru (E) are very strong, pointed claims.

All (A) is saying is that, "I'm not trying to FOREVER rule out the idea that advertising might be shady, I just wasn't persuaded by Marcuse's explanation of advertising's shadiness."

Picture this conversation:
"I'm trying to decide which law school to attend, and I'm planning to apply to Yale because they have a really good swim team."
"Well, I know that NYU and Columbia also have really good swim teams."

We could say that the 2nd person might follow up by saying,
"So, while in principle there might be grounds for you deciding to go to Yale, the existence of a good swim team does provide compelling grounds."