Television sitcom writers get no opportunities to craft scripts that are truly out of the box. One contributing factor is the pressure from the network to follow a formula that has a proven ability to deliver high ratings. At the same time, there is pressure from advertisers to avoid edgy or controversial material that might offend the audience. These factors taken together make it impossible for television sitcom writers to create scripts that break new ground.
Which of the following is an assumption that is required to draw the conclusion above?
(A) If advertisers believed that edgy material helped sell their products, television sitcom writers would have opportunities to write what they want.
(B) The formulas that sitcoms follow did not start out as edgy or innovative.
(C) The formulas that networks prefer are not always as safe and uncontroversial as the advertisers would like.
(D) Television sitcom writers do not engage in scriptwriting outside of that required for their jobs.
(E) The formulas, which guarantee high ratings, are also the formulas most likely to be approved by advertisers.
OA is D.
How should you approach this problem? First, read the set-up carefully and see whether anything seems suspicious. The set-up makes very strong claims: sitcom writers get no opportunities to write scripts that are out of the box; its impossible for them to create groundbreaking scripts. Remember that on the GMAT, these claims have to be taken literally: if the set-up says its impossible for the person to do something, its impossible, period. Thats an extremely strong claim, so look to see whether the argument has made an airtight case that its impossible.
What evidence does the set-up give to convince you that its impossible? Well, it tells you that writers are under pressure from both networks and advertisers. Does that prove that its impossible for them ever to write groundbreaking scripts? Look for loopholes. You can probably find a few. Scriptwriters could write groundbreaking scripts that never get produced because the network executives insist on approving all scripts before filming but even if the episodes are never filmed, the writers would still have written groundbreaking scripts. Or they could write groundbreaking scripts that get filmed and aired, after which the advertisers and network executives complain, and the scriptwriters lose their jobs but they still would have written the scripts. Or maybe the scriptwriters write scripts on the weekends that have nothing to do with the writing they do for their jobs (for all we know, maybe they want to do something different in hopes of landing new jobs). You may come up with other ways that the scriptwriters could write groundbreaking scripts, despite the pressure from the networks and the advertisers.
But now lets look at the answer choices.
(A) is irrelevant it says that there might be circumstances under which one of the premises would not hold. That has nothing to do with filling in an assumption that would make the argument stronger.
(B) is also irrelevant. Whether or not the formulas were innovative in the beginning has nothing to do with whether scriptwriters are forced to follow formulas now. It might seem tempting because it seems to make one of the premises stronger (i.e. not only are the formulas safe and boring, but they have always been that way), but it has nothing to do with the current situation.
(C) is also irrelevant whether or not the two sources of pressure disagree with each other has nothing to do with the claim that is made.
(D) closes one of the loopholes we identified. It says that the scriptwriters dont write any scripts outside of those they write for their jobs. That still leaves a couple of loopholes not addressed, but this is one of the assumptions that must be made to make the argument hold together, so this is the right answer.
(E) Is more or less the reverse of (C) it might seem tempting to say that the two sources of pressure on scriptwriters have to agree with each other, because otherwise you might think thered be wiggle room for scriptwriters to do something innovative. So it might seem like this is a necessary assumption. But in fact, it isnt necessary. It could be the case that the two different groups (network executives and advertisers) both have extensive lists of demands, and the scriptwriters just have to combine the two lists and write only the scripts that are judged permissible under both sets of criteria. So we dont have to assume that the two groups agree on their demands to make the argument hold, so the answer is not (E).
Notice how the sample GMAT question tries to trick you:
By labeling the people in question television sitcom writers, the question tries to trick you into thinking of these people only in terms of their jobs. You need to think outside the box by thinking more broadly dont just think of them as people who do nothing but write scripts that will appear in TV sitcoms, but imagine that they are actual people who might do all kinds of things, including writing scripts that wont help their jobs at all. Thinking outside the box that the question sets up helps you to find the flaws in the argument, and thus the correct answer.
but your doubt helped me resolved my doubt too. thankyou for posting the ques and your doubt. will try to clearify your doubt as much as I can.