D
deleted647690
Maybe someone that's already done the CARS Q packs could help me if you are somewhat familiar with the passage and don't mind.
From the passage, it sounds like the author is arguing that viewers of movies are not stupid enough to blindly fall for product advertising in movies. This seems to be what the critics of movie advertising are arguing. The author thinks that audience members are more intelligent than that. Thus, to answer this question, if there were a case of audience members blindly going out and buying something after seeing it in a movie, that would weaken the author's (brand defender's) argument. For this reason, I chose A. The argument for why it is wrong, from what I can read, is that the passage has nothing to do with sales of livestock....
C (the correct Answer) just sounds like the complete opposite of what I thought based on the author's argument. According to the reasoning, if viewers "were not aware, and were not resisting it" 'it' being the pull to buy something after seeing it in a movie, why would sales drop?
From the passage, it sounds like the author is arguing that viewers of movies are not stupid enough to blindly fall for product advertising in movies. This seems to be what the critics of movie advertising are arguing. The author thinks that audience members are more intelligent than that. Thus, to answer this question, if there were a case of audience members blindly going out and buying something after seeing it in a movie, that would weaken the author's (brand defender's) argument. For this reason, I chose A. The argument for why it is wrong, from what I can read, is that the passage has nothing to do with sales of livestock....
C (the correct Answer) just sounds like the complete opposite of what I thought based on the author's argument. According to the reasoning, if viewers "were not aware, and were not resisting it" 'it' being the pull to buy something after seeing it in a movie, why would sales drop?