PrepTest 144

Incorrect. The argument is about whether a given ad is effective, not whether the show itself will attract a repeat audience. As such, what matters is how those who tuned in because of the ad react, not how most people who tune in do. This answer is out of scope in including a group that isn't related to the point of comparison.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The TV ad for the new show is misrepresentative, so those tuning in two episode 1 probably won't tune back in, and thus the ad won't be as effective as the one the producers wanted.

Answer Anticipation:
Whoa, whoa, whoa—hold on a second! What ad did the producers favor? The conclusion of this argument compares two ads, but the premises provide information about only one of them.

In order to justify a comparative conclusion, the criteria for that comparison must be established, and the things being compared must have the relevant criteria established for them. Here, the relevant criteria are established (how misrepresentative it is; if it attracts repeat viewers), but those elements are only established for the ad that actually aired. In order to justify the conclusion, therefore, those elements need to be established for the ad favored by the producers, and it must be the case that they meet the criteria for effectiveness better than the aired ad. So the argument assumes that that ad isn't misrepresentative, and it would attract repeat viewers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the ad favored by the producers doesn't have the same problem as the ad that aired. If it did, then there'd be no basis for concluding that it would be more effective than the ad that did air. This is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
An argument that reaches a comparative conclusion needs to establish the criteria by which the comparison will be judged and how each element of the comparison stacks up. Short of any of those pieces, the argument is flawed, and the correct answer is likely to address the missing piece.

Incorrect. The comparison in the conclusion is between two different ads that could have aired, not between ads and other means of getting people to watch the show. The argument requires something to be true of those who do tune in because of the ad, not of those who tune in for other reasons.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme. While it does need to be true that a higher percentage of viewers would become repeat viewers from the producers' ad than the ad that aired, it doesn't have to be true that "almost all" of them would become repeat viewers.

Incorrect. Similar to several other answers, this doesn't directly address the group that watched the first episode because of the ad that aired, so it isn't necessary for a comparison between two ads' effect on that group.