When people are told that some behavior is common, they are more likely to indulge in that behavior even when society disapproves of it. For example, if many people are shown littering in an anti-litter advertisement, observers may subconsciously feel that littering is a normal, accepted activity. Thus, in order to influence behavior effectively, it is critical not to show or discuss anyone engaging in an activity that the advertisement seeks to discourage.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the argument’s conclusion?
(A) In a study, the most effective anti-smoking advertisement featured a person smoking amidst a disapproving crowd.
(B) The most effective way to influence behavior is for parents to teach their children not to litter.
(C) People who watch public service advertisements are typically aware that actors are merely pretending to engage in the disapproved behavior.
(D) Teenagers are more likely to litter than the general population and less likely to be influenced by anti-litter advertisements.
(E) In a study, the most effective anti-littering advertisement featured a pristine public park with children playing in the background.
Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Given Kudos: 0
Re: When people are told that some behavior is common, they are
[#permalink]
21 Feb 2018, 09:58
what is OA?
I am confused between A and C
I`ll go with A.. is it right?
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29748
Given Kudos: 25841
Re: When people are told that some behavior is common, they are
[#permalink]
22 Feb 2018, 02:00
C is just a fact. Irrelevant to weaken the conclusion.
A is the answer.
Regards
Intern
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Posts: 33
Given Kudos: 0
Re: When people are told that some behavior is common, they are
[#permalink]
11 Aug 2018, 04:22
To answer the question, we should find the statement telling the fact that some activity adverts discourage is influencing. Choice A state this the best.
Intern
Joined: 26 Apr 2020
Posts: 14
Given Kudos: 18
Re: When people are told that some behavior is common, they are
[#permalink]
12 May 2020, 08:40
In order to weaken argument , the conclusion must be attacked.
A states that even though it displayed what society( displeased crowd) deems as unfit , the campaign was very effective.
Thus the conclusion is directly attacked.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29748
Given Kudos: 25841
When people are told that some behavior is common, they are
[#permalink]
17 Sep 2024, 10:34
The conclusion, "in order to influence behavior effectively, it is critical not to show or discuss anyone engaging in an activity that the advertisement seeks to discourage", rests on the premise derived from a single case study, that is, "observers subconsciously feel that littering is normal after seeing many people litter in an ad".
Now we need to weaken this conclusion. As you can observe that the conclusion is quite a "generalised statement", derived from a single case study. Such generalised statements derived from a single case study are often tested on the GMAT. And though at first, it may look okay, it is wrong to reach a generalised statement based on a single case. Because that one case might be an anomaly or an exception, in that case, your conclusion will break down.
An easier sample argument to understand this is: - School X's education board has been promoting dance as a subject, thus it proves that the education board of the city M has taken huge steps towards the advancement of dance in city M. Here, you can see how I reached a general statement about City M's education Board based on School X's education board. School X's education board may or may not align with City M's vision. And here, if I bring in another statement, such as, "But majority of the schools in the City M have not introduced a similar policy with respect to dance as a subject". Then your belief in the original conclusion about City M's education board will be weakened.
This is what has been done in the given question as well. Choice (A) brings in an alternate counter case study that weakens the belief in our conclusion.
Option (C) on the other hand does neither. Even if the consumers know that the public is aware of the fact that "actors are merely pretending to engage in the disapproved behaviour in the advertisement", it does not weaken the assertion that their "performances" have an impact on their habits. There's nothing, in the stimulus or anyway, provided that might link "public being aware of actors acting in the advertisement" to "The public's habits not being influenced due to their awareness on this matter". They might very well be influenced even after being aware of the fact in (C). So, (C) does not weaken our belief in the conclusion, and this is why it is not the correct choice.
I hope it helps.
60% (01:54) correct
