Top Law Schools

This question really threw me off. I chose E - the correct answer because none of the others made any sense. I'm looking at it again and I don't see why this weakens the argument.

E: The BWR's annual poetry anthology always contains a number of poems by poets not published in the regular issue.

So they have to compensate the poets of these new poems so whatever they make from sales of the anthology would include the expense of including these new poets. But the arg says that they make enough money an the anthology to cover most operating expenses - doesn't this mean that even though they are paying the new poets, they are still make enough to cover operating expenses...

Thanks!

If the poems in their anthology were poems by famous poets then, presumably, they paid to have those poems included in there. So because of this the sales of the anthologies may not cover their operating expenses and hence they may need to rely on more on donations.

This explanation worked for me. Whether or not its a good explanation, I dont know, but it makes sense.

I think you may be focusing on the wrong assumption.

The conclusion of the argument is that if "your" magazine does the same thing as The Brick Wall and compile anthologies, you could depend less on donations.

The assumption is that your anthology will sell just as well as The Brick Wall's and the increased revenues will reduce the need for other sources of income. If this were not true, and there's a reason that your anthologies would not sell as well, it could be possible that following The Brick Wall's strategy will not allow you to depend less on donations.

That's why (E) works. If it were true, The Brick Wall's anthologies are unique and its poems by famous poets are why they sell so well. Thus, if you don't have these poems, there's no reason to believe that your anthologies will sell as well as The Brick Wall's.

Ooh Zero's explantion sounds much cuter than mine. For the sake of not confusing yourself, pay no attention to mine. It worked for me, but I may have just gotten lucky.

I agree with yzero1.

If the Brick Wall has a bunch of famous and popular poets in their anthology, then it's not really just the anthologized poems published in that year that's pulling in the dough. Therefore, it voids the argument.

yzero1 wrote:I think you may be focusing on the wrong assumption.

The conclusion of the argument is that if "your" magazine does the same thing as The Brick Wall and compile anthologies, you could depend less on donations.

The assumption is that your anthology will sell just as well as The Brick Wall's and the increased revenues will reduce the need for other sources of income. If this were not true, and there's a reason that your anthologies would not sell as well, it could be possible that following The Brick Wall's strategy will not allow you to depend less on donations.

That's why (E) works. If it were true, The Brick Wall's anthologies are unique and its poems by famous poets are why they sell so well. Thus, if you don't have these poems, there's no reason to believe that your anthologies will sell as well as The Brick Wall's.

Thanks so much. This explanation really makes it clear for me - it also shows just how easily it is to get distracted by other info in the arg.

kpuc wrote:I agree with yzero1.

If the Brick Wall has a bunch of famous and popular poets in their anthology, then it's not really just the anthologized poems published in that year that's pulling in the dough. Therefore, it voids the argument.

This.