PrepTest 27, Section 3, Question 18
Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit. Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published. It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value.
Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit. Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published. It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value.
Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit. Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published. It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value.
Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit. Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published. It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Book publishers have always been very interested in making money.
There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.
In the past, often books of intrinsic value would unexpectedly make a sizable profit.
There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.
In recent years, profits in the book publishing industry have been declining.
Explanations
This is a crummy argument.
The author says publishers used to publish some books with intrinsic value even if they were unlikely to turn a profit, but that this trend is happening less and less nowadays.
The author cites this shifting paradigm to claim publishers must be more profit hungry nowadays than they are interested in publishing books with intrinsic value.
I call BS. What if these publishers are just seeing fewer and fewer manuscripts showcasing intrinsic value? What if the publishers' available works to publish are increasingly garbage?
We're asked to weaken this argument, so I'm going in armed with a pretty solid objection.
Let's see.
Nope. Cool story—I'm sure this is true, but it doesn't affect the extent to which publishers today are less interested in intrinsic value compared to publishers in the past.
Perfect. This is a devastating weakener, and right in line with our prediction. If the publishers are getting garbage manuscripts, then their taste for valuable books may not have changed at all, even relative to potential profitability. They might just be getting lower quality submissions.
Nah. This would be great for the publishers of yore. But if this is true, we would expect publishers to continue publishing books they don't expect to make a great profit because they'll hit the jackpot every once in a while.
No. Like A, I'm sure this is true. But it doesn't help me argue back against the author's claim that publishers are more focused on profit than intrinsic value nowadays.
Nope. If anything, this strengthens the argument by providing an explanation for profit-seeking. If profits are decreasing industry-wide, then it makes sense why publishers would shift focus from intrinsic value to profitable publications.
0 Comments