PT158 S3 Q15 ExplanationSelling syndicated reruns of a popular network

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope6% picked this

   Programs that are sold into syndication early tend to be long-running hits that are likely

   Whether programs sold into syndication early tend to be long-running hits that are likely to decline in popularity is beside the point. The argument's gap is between ratings drops and revenue losses for the network. This answer addresses why certain shows might experience ratings drops — because they are already past their peak — but the argument already has evidence of ratings drops (the 80 percent study). The argument does not need an explanation for why ratings drop. It needs a connection between ratings drops and revenue losses. This answer fills a hole that does not exist while leaving the actual gap wide open.

   6%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   A drop in ratings has a negative effect on the

   Why this is right

   The argument's evidence is that first-run episodes suffer a ratings drop when reruns are available simultaneously. The conclusion is that this leads to decreased revenues for the network. The hidden assumption bridging these two claims is that a drop in ratings negatively affects the network's revenues. Without this link, the ratings evidence is irrelevant to the revenue conclusion. Apply the Negation Test: if a drop in ratings has NO negative effect on the network's revenues, then proving ratings dropped tells us nothing about whether revenues decreased, and the entire argument collapses. This answer fills the exact gap between evidence (ratings drop) and conclusion (revenues decrease), making it the necessary assumption.

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

   79%
3. C

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   The price of syndication rights includes some compensation for the network's

   Whether the price of syndication rights includes compensation for the network's probable losses is irrelevant to whether the syndication causes those losses in the first place. The argument claims that selling reruns while the show is running leads to decreased network revenues. The question of whether anyone compensates the network for those losses is a separate issue — it does not affect whether the losses occur. Even if the syndication price includes compensation, the argument's conclusion could still be true (revenues decrease from the ratings drop, regardless of whether the syndication sale itself partially offsets those losses). The argument needs ratings-to-revenue, not information about deal structure.

   5%
4. D

   Too Strong9% picked this

   The audience of a popular program will usually prefer first-run episodes

   The argument does not need to assume that audiences usually prefer first-run episodes to reruns. The study already provides the key evidence: when both are available, first-run ratings drop. Why the ratings drop — whether due to audience preference for reruns, scheduling convenience, or anything else — is not the gap in the argument. The gap is between the established ratings drop and the concluded revenue loss. Additionally, "usually prefer" is a strong claim about audience behavior that the argument never relies on. The argument's logical structure would function the same way regardless of audience preferences, as long as a ratings drop causes revenue loss.

   9%
5. E

   Too Strong1% picked this

   Most programs are never sold into

   Whether most programs are ever sold into syndication has no bearing on whether the ones that ARE sold during their first-run season cause revenue losses for the network. The argument is specifically about programs that are sold into syndication while still running. How common that practice is — whether it happens to most or few programs — does not affect the causal chain the argument establishes. The gap between ratings drops and revenue losses exists regardless of how many programs enter syndication. This is background information about the industry that is completely disconnected from the argument's logical structure.

   1%