People aged 46 to 55 spend more money per capita than people of any other age group. So it is puzzling that when companies advertise consumer products on television, they focus almost exclusively on people aged 25 and under. Indeed, those who make decisions about television advertising think that the value of a television advertising slot depends entirely on the number of people aged 25 and under who can be expected to be watching at that time.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the puzzling facts stated above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

The expense of television advertising slots makes it crucial for companies to target people who are most likely to purchase their products.\n

Advertising slots during news programs almost always cost far less than advertising slots during popular sitcoms whose leading characters are young adults.

When television executives decide which shows to renew, they do so primarily in terms of the shows’ ratings among people aged 25 and under.\n

Those who make decisions about television advertising believe that people older than 25 almost never change their buying habits.

Correct

When companies advertise consumer products in print media, they focus primarily on people aged 26 and over.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Unlock the full explanation

Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.

Create free account Sign in

Comments

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts and help others understand it better.

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can explain an apparent contradiction in a way that makes both facts true.

Common trap

Picking an option that explains one side of the paradox while making the other side false.