[DELETED - DID NOT PROVIDE SOURCE]

by **Dhawal** Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:00 am

[Deleted - source not cited]

by **Nagm** Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:31 pm

Remember this argument is about small channel flourishing and major network are considering cuts. Advertising cuts is not a concern. For example big channels earn their revenues from advertising and small channel from Publice Funding/Donation. So advertising is redundnat. And it may be possible that small channels do not depend on funding primarily as they get funding from PUBLIC. Second people are watching more TV but on smaller channels.

by **StaceyKoprince** Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:30 am

Is this one of our questions? I don't recognize it. Please let me know - if this is not a ManhattanGMAT question, it should not be in this folder.

Advertisers don't know who does or doesn't watch their commercials. The advertisers buy ad time up front. I don't like this choice, though, because testers shouldn't have to know how advertising works in order to answer the question.

by **lvincy** Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:33 pm

It is D because the decline in viewership of News channels has effected the advertisement revenue of 3 major channels while the local channels are flourishing because of local news which are not available online.And local channels advertisement rates are low so there is overall decrease in revenue.
Revenue is declining for state because Decline in 3 major channel revenue is far greater then Gain by Local channels.

This explains the contradiction.

by **StaceyKoprince** Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:40 pm

Okay, I talked to our curriculum director and this one is NOT one of ours. Please post the source or the problem will be deleted. Please also remember that this folder is ONLY for material that appears in the ManhattanGMAT verbal strategy guides or in the on-line materials associated with those guides (eg, question banks). Thanks!