PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 5
Television executives recently announced that advertising time on(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AMost costs of(21 more words not shown)
- BThe system for(15 more words not shown)
- CNext fall advertising(14 more words not shown)
- DThe amount of(23 more words not shown)
- EA recent survey(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Still profitable doesn't necessarily mean just as easy to sell.
A higher advertising price makes me want to check the buyer's numbers. Suppose spending $100 on an ad brings in $105 after the business's other relevant costs. That leaves $5. If the same ad now costs $110 and brings in no additional return, the small profit disappears. This is an illustration, not a claim about these advertisers' actual margins. It shows why a 10 to 15 percent price increase could matter.
Even if we grant that some profit remains, advertisers could become less willing to buy. They might reduce the number of ads or prefer another use for their money. The executives need more support for the stronger claim that selling the time won't become harder.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd initially look for evidence that demand will hold up: perhaps many advertisers are already eager to buy the available time, or business conditions give them a reason to keep spending. We need a reason the higher price won't make the offer less attractive, not just reassurance that television advertising has produced profits before.
Working the answers
- A
Higher production and distribution costs don't make television ads more attractive. They might squeeze advertisers' budgets further. We don't know how the businesses would respond, but an additional cost gives us no clear support for the executives' prediction that selling ad time will remain easy.
- B
A change in how audience size is measured doesn't tell us that the audience will grow or that advertising will become more valuable. The new system might report larger numbers, smaller numbers, or similar numbers. Without knowing the effect, a change in measurement doesn't support continued demand.
- C
Eliminating shorter slots doesn't supply an added benefit to buyers. It could even make television advertising less attractive to a business that wants a brief, inexpensive ad. We don't have to prove that demand will fall to see that removing an option provides no clear support for keeping sales easy.
- D
One group buys more time while another buys less. How large are those changes? Increasing purchases by service businesses could outweigh the decrease among product businesses, match it, or fall short. Without that comparison, we can't infer growing demand overall. A shift in the identity of buyers doesn't settle how easily the available time will sell.
- ECorrect
More time spent watching television gives us a reason to expect more opportunities for advertisers to reach viewers. That makes the medium potentially more valuable, helping explain why advertisers might accept higher prices. This improves the argument through the value of what buyers receive, rather than directly reporting the strong demand I first predicted.
Imagine paying $10 for an ad that gets 1,000 views. If a $20 ad instead gets 10,000 views, the higher price could be worth paying: the price doubles while exposure rises much more. We would still care whether those views produce business, but price alone wouldn't tell the story.
E doesn't establish those particular numbers. It says average viewing hours are increasing, not that every ad reaches proportionally more people or that profits stay exactly the same. Still, the increased potential exposure supplies a benefit that could help offset the higher price. That's the support missing from the other choices.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.