A film makes a profit if

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear/Opposite Impact1% picked this

   More people are willing to see a film more than once than are willing to watch a television

   This does point out a different between film and TV, but it's not clear how this would explain TV execs motives. This answer would require us to think, "If you think people are only going to watch your show once, then your primary goal isn't to attract the highest number of viewers". If anything this seems to go the opposite direction of explaining. Repeat-watching would be a way that you could make lots of revenue without necessarily needing lots of viewers (100 people watching something 10 times could be just as profitable as 1000 people watching something 1 time). Since TV watchers are not as frequently repeat-watchers, it seems even more like a TV exec would want to max out the number of people who would watch a show.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: owners of theaters1% picked this

   There is no analog in television to the large profits that owners of movie theaters make by selling

   We're analyzing a comparison between film execs and TV execs. The way that movie theater owners make their money is too out of scope. Film execs make their money based on number of people who see it, and until an answer choice tells us otherwise, we're left assuming that TV execs would make their money the same way.

   1%
3. C

   No Impact7% picked this

   The average cost of producing an hour of film is much greater than the average cost of producing

   This does establish a difference --- the costs of making films is higher than the costs of making TV shows. But given that business owners are motivated to make profits as high as possible, it's not clear why this would explain how TV execs have some other priority bigger than number of viewers. The distinction presented by this answer makes it seem like film execs would have to raise more revenue before they hit profitability than tv execs would, but we still think they're both shooting for profitability, and until we're told otherwise, we're still assuming that profitability would come from number of viewers, so we are still confused why TV execs have a different primary goal.

   7%
4. D

   Correct86% picked this

   Television shows make their profits from sponsors, who are chiefly concerned with the purchasing power of the people

   Why this is right

   This gives us a meaningful distinction relating to TV execs' profitability goals. Since TV shows make profits from sponsors, and sponsors care less about number of viewers and more about purchasing power of viewers, we can explain a TV exec is more likely to have the primary goal of maximizing the disposable income (i.e. purchasing power) of the audience for their shows.

   Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   86%
5. E

   Too Weak6% picked this

   Over half of the most popular television shows are shows that viewers do not have

   "Over half of the most popular shows" isn't a particularly strong quantity. What does "the most popular shows" mean? The top 10? So we're saying "at least 6 shows are shows that viewers don't have to pay to watch"? Beyond the fact that the answer only addresses a tiny % of television shows, does it give a reason why TV execs don't have "number of viewers" as their primary goal? What alternative primary goal is being suggested? There isn't one. So this answer doesn't do as much to help explain the paradox as (D) does, because with (D) we actually have a sense of what TV execs are prioritizing instead of "number of viewers", and why.

   6%