GMAT阅读机经整理：比来比去的广告.

　　4月5日GMAT换库后，小编为大家收集整理4月份的GMAT阅读机经，这篇是关于比来比去的广告的文章，分享给大家，希望对大家有所帮助，仅供参考。

　　一、本月原始

　　另一个说原先研究者认为比较性的广告比不比较的更有说服力，先解释什么是比较，不比较的再说之前那个结论有些人不同意，因为得出之前结论的调查方法不对，应该用相关性调查法，然后就说这个怎么好，比之前方法科学。。。。。。我尽力了!

　　二、文章类型及结构

　　P1 广告说服力度的对比

　　u W&F认为对比型广告>非对比型广告

　　u 但是根据研究(care&区分度)对比型广告reduce persuasion

　　P2 However作者观点：认为对比型广告>非对比型广告。且研究结果是null，因为

　　u sample不对，本身说服力不强。

　　u 没有引入相关性因素(relative factor)，无法measure

　　三、段落大意

　　P1 Wilkie and Farris认为：对比型广告(competitive advertisement)——即在广告中说自己的产品比竞争对手的产品怎么好;比非对比型(noncompetitive)广告更有说服力(persuasive)。但有些研究表明：对比型广告不那么有说服力(reduce persuasion)。支持研究理由有以下三条：(1)消费者并不关心(care) 广告中对产品的某些特性的比较，或是客户早就熟知这些优势了，对他们也没用。(2)消费者没有办法区分广告中那个品牌产品在理论上比别的产品好，是否在实际上真的比别的商品好。(3)即使给消费者提供了相应的指导，他们还是不会区分。

　　P2 However，作者态度：反对以上研究，认为对比型广告比非对比型的更有说服力。

　　作者认为实验得出的结果是无价值(null)，因为：

　　(1)证明消费者不care或已熟知特性时所取的样本(sample)不对——它研究的两组广告，本身说服力不强。此类广告是要突出产品与竞争产品的差异，而如果看广告的人早已熟知差异，那么这种广告对消费者的观点的影响就不大了。两组广告都是用了和健康有关的产品，需要研究其他非健康相关产品的广告才能得出正确的结论。(有题)

　　(2)没有引入相关性因素(relative factor)来衡量(measure)广告的说服力度。

　　原先的实验是没有相关比较的实验(relative experiment)因此无法有效反应对比广告是否优于非对比。上述研究因为只取了与结果一致的数据而早成了研究结果的局限性。The attractiveness of the ads, which show the difference, and the ads, which do not, are equivalent。更有效的实验应该是有相关性的实验(relative experiment)。In this experiment, the consumer at first will show some prerence of some products.

　　四、题目

　　1、主旨题(本月试题)

　　V1对一个研究的评价。全文还是比较偏重评价competitive广告有效性的研究问题。

　　V2对一个研究的评价evaluate (本月狗主)

　　2、问作者观点(本月试题)

　　V1 一个可能的解释对于竞争性广告没有说服力。

　　V2批判了几个很扯的study并维护了可比较广告的正确性。

　　V3我觉得应该是criticise那一项。(本月狗主)

　　3、non relative 和 relative 对 post communication 作用的区别(本月试题)

　　V1 specifically point out the rerence/选有 point of rerence的答案。

　　V2选Specific。(本月狗主)

　　4、为何研究的结果不对?/关于写study很null的原因?

　　V1采样不完全/他们不rerence。

　　5、问开头那2个学者最同意下面哪个?/ W&F那2个学者最同意下面哪个?(本月试题)

　　本月狗主思路：选项有相近的，注意读文章，错误选项是没有分清comparative & non-comparative和relative & non-relative对应的内容。

　　6、文章suggest作者同意什么?

　　7、下列关于可比较广告哪个是正确的?(本月试题)

　　V1现有的研究可以证明可比较广告还是很靠谱的。

　　V2正确选项大意应该是“existing study provides stronger support to 对比型广告”(我印象中是有比较级的)(本月狗主)

　　五、参考背景—二战时期黑人权利的背景(有兴趣的同学可以看一下)

　　In their classic article, Wilkie and Farris (1975) proposed that, in general, comparative advertisements will be more persuasive than their no comparative counterparts. However, the bulk of empirical evidence has not supported this proposition. Although several studies have shown comparative ads can exert more positive fects than no comparative ads on brand attitudes, purchase intentions, or purchase, comparative ads have also been found to reduce persuasion. Perhaps the most common finding has been that comparative and non comparative ads produce very similar post communication (产品后续宣传) attitudes and intentions. Why have comparative and no comparative ads so often been found to produce similar levels of persuasion? One rather obvious possibility is that null findings(无效)are simply the result of the fact that the particular comparative and no comparative ads used in the test situation were truly equivalent in their persuasiveness. It may be, for instance, that the comparative copy communicated interbred differences that were seen as trivial or unimportant. Similarly, failure to include adequate substantiation for the comparative claims could render them impotent (无力的，无效的). Even if comparative claims convey important differences with adequate substantiation, they may be no more fective than no comparative claims when consumers are already aware of these differences. Another possibility, the one explored in this paper, is that the failure to detect persuasion differences between comparative and no comparative ads may be the result of the types of measures used to test for such fects. Earlier investigations have often relied upon nonrelatives or monadic (一元的) measures of post communication impressions (i.e., measures that assess belis, attitudes, and/or intentions toward the advertised brand without an explicit point of rerence). However, it would appear that relative measures (i.e., measures that use the comparison brand as a point of rerence in their assessment) are better suited for capturing the persuasive impact of comparative advertising. The rationale for this position is developed in the following sections.

　　One potentially important difference between comparative and no comparative advertising is the ability of a comparative ad to encourage a particular point of rerence during encoding of the information about the advertised brand. Moorman (1990) points out that external rerence points can enhance consumers&apos ability to process information as well as their comprehension of the information. As a result, consumers who lack the knowledge necessary to understand some information fully may benit from the bench marks provided by rerence information. External rerence points may not only increase one&aposs ability to extract meaning from a set of information, they may also affect the particular meaning extracted from the information. The presence of such rerence points during processing may result in their becoming an integral part of the impressions which are formed. Consequently, consumers exposed to comparative ads which provide an explicit comparison brand should be more likely to form mental impressions of the advertised brand that are relative (to the comparison brand) in nature than they would following exposure to no comparative ads.

　　以上就是关于比来比去的广告的GMAT阅读机经的全部内容，考生朋友可以有选择的看看，最后需要提醒各位的是，机经虽然会对我们解题有所帮助，但是在考场中即使题目很像也要避免秒选，最后祝大家都能考出好成绩。