Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A - Does question the sales person's claim. But does not weaken. Questioning a claim is not same as weakening it.
B - B would have been perfect if the sales person said. There is no correlation between ingredients of other brands and their sales.
C - Accuses the sales person
D - The company spokes person is talking about decrease in existing ingredients and not the variety of ingredients. The sales person is missing the point here. E -This comes close. However it does not say clearly whether it is the quantity or the variety.
D would be my first choice and E would be my second.
The analyst refers to the number of variety of meat in dogfood, not the decrease. For instance, dogfood with 20 or 25 varieties of meat could be invariably similar but a decrease to 15 varieties could be considered critical to sales. D is the answer
Although I still don't see it. "The number of varieties" means how many different varieties this dog food has. The first guy says that fewer of this number will hurt the sales. The second guy says that there is no correlation between this number and sales. Meaning that either a decrease or an increase in this number will have no effect on the sales.
My system: I was looking for an answer that weakens the analyst argument that connects the [u]number of varieties [/u]to sales. D is the only one that speaks of the varieties. See below.
a) Is too broad. What statistics?
c) Totally out of scope.. they are trying to get you
d) YES. They talk about the number of varieties.. but most importantly shows the weakness by saying that the analyst should have addressed the decreases in the number of varieties.
e) ingredients is out of scope