Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 16:03

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 2

In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2009, 16:58
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie theaters started propping its
popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until
then. Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt
popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Moviemania’s own sales
figures, Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against
Moviemania’s claim?

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less
than 5 percent last year.
B. Moviemania makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it
does on sales of movie tickets.
C. Moviemania’s customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that
of popcorn popped in canola oil.
D. Total attendance at Moviemania’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent
higher last year than the year before.
E. The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn
sales over the previous year.

Please explain
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 735
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2009, 18:26
A.

A implies that popcorn was the most sold item as all other refreshments sell increased by less than 5%
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 179
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2009, 18:51
yep A is clear.
Good qn. though.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 2

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2009, 20:08
Could you please elaborate the answer, I am not getting it.
alpha_plus_gamma wrote:
A.

A implies that popcorn was the most sold item as all other refreshments sell increased by less than 5%
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 14

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2009, 20:35
Definitely A....

If all other refreshment items were less sold it means that moviemanea theatre was selling more popcorn propped in canola oil. Thus this option support the argument against moviemanea claim
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 286
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2009, 00:39
reply2spg wrote:
In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie theaters started propping its
popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until
then. Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt
popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Moviemania’s own sales
figures, Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against
Moviemania’s claim?

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less
than 5 percent last year.
B. Moviemania makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it
does on sales of movie tickets.
C. Moviemania’s customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that
of popcorn popped in canola oil.
D. Total attendance at Moviemania’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent
higher last year than the year before.
E. The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn
sales over the previous year.

Please explain


C, D and E support company's claim. B is a general statement. A makes sense because if total sales of other items increased by less than 5%, then the increase in popcorn sale is a substantially big number.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 64
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 2

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2009, 02:43
Definitely A, Since the rest of the options supports the company's claim.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 2

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2009, 06:31
OA A
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1435
Followers: 35

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 1

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2009, 08:28
I am not getting this. Can some one tell me where I am screwing up?

Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales.

Claim is false

change has not hurt popcorn sales is what we need to establish.

Lets take A

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year

&

Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less
than 5 percent last year.

How can we relate the amount of popcorn sold which is 5% more than the last year to the sales of all refreshments, which was less than 5%?

Example: first year 100 PC sold, so this year 105 sold. First year total 1000 refreshments sold. this year between 1001-1049 sold. How are we establishing the fact that the change has not hurt PC sales? I just cant deduce one way or the other.

I picked E and here is why

The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year

&

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

1st year -X 2nd year 1.10 X 3rd year - 1.10X + 5% (1.10x)

Clearly the sales went up and the change has not hurt the sales.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 286
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2009, 20:00
icandy wrote:
I am not getting this. Can some one tell me where I am screwing up?

Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales.

Claim is false

change has not hurt popcorn sales is what we need to establish.

Lets take A

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year

&

Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less
than 5 percent last year.

How can we relate the amount of popcorn sold which is 5% more than the last year to the sales of all refreshments, which was less than 5%?

Example: first year 100 PC sold, so this year 105 sold. First year total 1000 refreshments sold. this year between 1001-1049 sold. How are we establishing the fact that the change has not hurt PC sales? I just cant deduce one way or the other.

I picked E and here is why

The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year

&

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

1st year -X 2nd year 1.10 X 3rd year - 1.10X + 5% (1.10x)

Clearly the sales went up and the change has not hurt the sales.


E states that the sales growth a year before was 10% and now after switching to the new oil, the growth is only 5%. So, company is justified in going back to the same oil.

A says that sales of all refreshments increased less than 5%. This means that there are many eatables that showed very small growth (it could be negative as well). So, using new oil for the popcorn is working.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 105
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 2

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 19 Feb 2009, 22:35
Definitely A.
I could not figure out how strongly A supports the increase in Popcorn sales, but all the other options "weaken" the claim.

In a Supporting Q if all the options are weakening then an option which just restates (put forward ) the claim is the winner.
Sale of all food items increased, so Popcorn had infact increased.


A good Q indeed. Could you please share the source !!!! Is it from LSAT ?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 99

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 21 Feb 2009, 20:13
I figured the answer after I found all the remaining choices are not relavent (or weakening). B, C, D and E are wrong so the answer is A :-D hehe.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 21 Feb 2009, 22:43
E in fact goes in favour of the claim. If the year before previous year sales had increased 10% but last year, the sales increased only 5%. this clearly means that the sales dipped. and oil wa responsible for this. Definitely the compnay would wish to revert back to coconut oil
icandy wrote:
I am not getting this. Can some one tell me where I am screwing up?

Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales.

Claim is false

change has not hurt popcorn sales is what we need to establish.

Lets take A

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year

&

Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less
than 5 percent last year.

How can we relate the amount of popcorn sold which is 5% more than the last year to the sales of all refreshments, which was less than 5%?

Example: first year 100 PC sold, so this year 105 sold. First year total 1000 refreshments sold. this year between 1001-1049 sold. How are we establishing the fact that the change has not hurt PC sales? I just cant deduce one way or the other.

I picked E and here is why

The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year

&

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

1st year -X 2nd year 1.10 X 3rd year - 1.10X + 5% (1.10x)

Clearly the sales went up and the change has not hurt the sales.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 21 Feb 2009, 22:43
E in fact goes in favour of the claim. If the year before previous year sales had increased 10% but last year, the sales increased only 5%. this clearly means that the sales dipped. and oil wa responsible for this. Definitely the compnay would wish to revert back to coconut oil
icandy wrote:
I am not getting this. Can some one tell me where I am screwing up?

Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales.

Claim is false

change has not hurt popcorn sales is what we need to establish.

Lets take A

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year

&

Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less
than 5 percent last year.

How can we relate the amount of popcorn sold which is 5% more than the last year to the sales of all refreshments, which was less than 5%?

Example: first year 100 PC sold, so this year 105 sold. First year total 1000 refreshments sold. this year between 1001-1049 sold. How are we establishing the fact that the change has not hurt PC sales? I just cant deduce one way or the other.

I picked E and here is why

The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year

&

Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

1st year -X 2nd year 1.10 X 3rd year - 1.10X + 5% (1.10x)

Clearly the sales went up and the change has not hurt the sales.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 22 Feb 2009, 10:48
OK, let's tear this question down. The conclusion, as already noted, is that the change did NOT hurt popcorn sales last year. The evidence is that popcorn sales last year were 5% higher than the previous year.

This might actually SEEM to be a solid argument, if you misunderstand the meaning of "hurting popcorn sales" in the conclusion. "Hurting popcorn sales" does NOT mean "reducing sales from what they were the PREVIOUS year". What it really means -- think about it from a BUSINESS point of view -- is "causing sales to be lower LAST year than they WOULD have been LAST year IF we had used coconut oil".

(Many (if not most) real marketing professionals frequently commit this same error of understanding in their actual work.)

Once we understand that this is the real meaning of the conclusion, then we can see what the argument assumes: It assumes that the PREVIOUS year and LAST year are similar in all important respects. It also assumes that the increase in sales in the PREVIOUS year was no bigger than 5%. Why is this a necessary assumption? Because if the two years are similar in all important respects, AND sales the PREVIOUS year increased by more than 10%, then an increase of 5% LAST year is LESS than it should have been -- which means that sales WERE hurt.

Now look at the answer choices in relation to these two assumptions. B is irrelevant. C might be an explanation of why sales were hurt IF we found that they were hurt, but it is irrelevant to the argument: It does not affect how THIS EVIDENCE supports (or doesn't support) the conclusion. D weakens the argument because it says there WAS a difference, and it is a difference which clearly COULD affect popcorn sales. E weakens the argument because it contradicts the second assumption.

A strengthens the argument because it indicates that the previous year and last year were not just SIMILAR in an important way, but that there was actually a difference which (if other things were equal) could cause popcorn sales to increase by LESS than 5% last year.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 202
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V35
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 25

Re: CR Popcorn [#permalink] New post 25 Sep 2009, 11:02
It's definitely A. I got it on my practice test and got it right.
_________________

Consider giving Kudos if you like the post.

Re: CR Popcorn   [#permalink] 25 Sep 2009, 11:02
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Experts publish their posts in the topic In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie marcodonzelli 11 10 Feb 2008, 04:50
13 Experts publish their posts in the topic In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie 12345678 21 28 Aug 2007, 04:19
In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie KC 11 01 Nov 2006, 17:30
In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie rahulraao 5 23 Nov 2005, 18:05
In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie chunjuwu 4 20 Dec 2004, 09:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.