#21- Specific Reference, Must Be True, Expansion

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi 180bound and mom,

You're both taking too harsh a stance with respect to answer choice A. We're looking for an answer that would "most logically" complete the passage. It's true we categorize that as a Must Be True, but it's not the hard and fast form of Must Be True (where we need an answer that 100%, logically irresistibly) follows directly from the passage. Instead, this is the Most Strongly Supported form of a must be true question. That means the Fact Test may not be directly satisfied (it's possible we do not find a direct reference to each of the answer choice's terms or phrases). Instead, we're looking for an answer that we can infer with the highest level of certainty from the passage.

That we "might have grounds" to say advertising is, in principle, "detrimental to society" can be inferred from the fact that the author never actually directly opposes the notion that advertising has some potentially negative impacts (that it may be oppressive or manipulative or hegemonic). Rather, the author's critique of Marcuse is more specific than that--the author rejects Marcuse's distinction between real and false needs. The author doesn't believe advertising creates false needs, because people retain their autonomy ("[a]dvertising techniques are unable to induce unwilling behavior in rational, informed adults, and regulations prohibit misinformation in advertising claims"). The author doesn't go any further than that, and certainly doesn't suggest advertising is, for those reasons, per se good. So, consistent with answer choice A, the author allows for the possibility of a negative impact of advertising--just not the kind of negative impact Marcuse and his followers imagine.

James hit the nail precisely on the head above, where he notes that answer choice E is a false description of what the author claims Marcusians argue. Answer choice E says, "its [Marcusian critique's] claim that advertisers exert economic power over those few people who are unable or unwilling to distinguish real from false needs," but the passage doesn't describe Marcusian critique that way. Rather, the author thinks Marcusian critique claims that everyone is subjected to false needs created by advertising ("If Marcusians are right, we cannot, with any assurance, separate our real needs from the alleged false needs we feel").

I hope this helps!

In this sense, is E a kind of 'negative inference' ?

Thank you

[Dana D]

Hey Dancing,

I don't think negative inferences are a thing, rather, Jeremy is pointing out that answer choice (E) does not match what the author is saying. This answer choice is kind of like a must be false, which is the closest to a 'negative inference' that I can think of - this is a statement that must be false (cannot be true) based on the passage.

Hope that helps!