| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
phoenixwarlord
Joined: 28 Jun 2006 Posts: 8
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i understand why II is rite, but how is III not right, in third paragraph near the end, it mentions "small proportion of products heavily advertised. Apparently there are many products for which advertising does not elicit strong consumer response", this statements suggests that the reason behind "not advertising their products" is because "their products won't elicit response", this is contradicted by III, which states that "although response is SURE to be generated but it is hard to be converted into profits, which is why those products are not advertised" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jellywing_2058
Joined: 04 May 2009 Posts: 179
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Answer choice III is actually about the brand of the product. It says that there is not point in advertising a product if it is not branded and that has nothing to do with Nelson's hypothesis, making III a wrong choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|