Q5 - Some people believe that advertising

[smiller]

Question Type:
Inference

Stimulus Breakdown:
The stimulus presents an argument, but we don't need to look for a flaw or gap. The first sentence claims that advertising is pernicious (harmful) because it changes our preferences. The second sentence contradicts that claim by noting that classes in music and art appreciation do the same. We should recognize a standard argument form here: opposing point, "however," premises, "therefore," conclusion. The correct answer will be a logical conclusion for this argument.

Answer Anticipation:
A likely conclusion will contradict the idea that advertising is harmful, or more specifically, that its ability to change consumers' preferences is sufficient reason to view it as harmful.

Correct Answer:
(C)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is out of scope. The argument is not about consumers continuing to want things that they already want, and the stimulus doesn't provide grounds for any conclusion about things that aren't advertised.

(B) This goes in the opposite direction from what we want. We're looking for a conclusion that contradicts the notion that advertising is pernicious. Furthermore, the stimulus only discusses the effect of advertising on people's preferences. Even if we were trying to support the idea that advertising is pernicious—and we aren't—we don't know anything about other effects that advertising might have.

(C) This is correct. It's the type of conclusion we were expecting, based on the premises about music and art. It contradicts the idea in the first sentence of the stimulus, that advertising is harmful because it changes consumers' preferences.

(D) This is a tempting answer choice, but it's not the most logical conclusion. Looking at the stimulus again, we see the first sentence contains its own argument: advertising is harmful because it changes people's preferences. The most logical conclusion is one that contradicts this argument. In other words, we want something that states, "causing peoples' preferences to change does not make advertising harmful" Choice (C) states this more directly.

(E) This could also be tempting if you didn't pay close enough attention to the claim in the first sentence of the stimulus, and the exact part that is being disputed in the second sentence. We aren't questioning the claim that advertising changes people's preferences; we're looking for a conclusion which denies that this causes harm.

Takeaway/Pattern: In this type of question, the correct answer is normally some type of conclusion that follows from the stimulus. Understand the exact idea that the stimulus is trying to support, or refute. Choose the answer that most directly connects with that idea.

#officialexplanation