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:
Marketing chief: The aggressive sales campaign of Product J [#permalink]
26 Dec 2013, 05:35
This post was BOOKMARKED
59% (02:22) correct
41% (01:35) wrong based on 129 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Marketing chief: The aggressive sales campaign of Product J has made it the most popular product in the sector. Every individual move we made in that campaign was wildly successful, and sales of the product continuously rose. If we mount a similar style sales campaign with Product S, we are likely to vault this into popularity in its own sector, with a similarly robust sales trajectory.
Consultant: The popularity of Product J preceded the sales campaign and was responsible for it.
The consultant uses which of the following techniques in responding to the marketing chief?
A) questioning the posited relationship of cause and effect B) citing evidence that contradicts the assumption of the argument C) pointing out that the same premises might support an opposing conclusion D) citing evidence that calls into question the strength of the premise E) strengthening the argument with further evidence
Re: Marketing chief: The aggressive sales campaign of Product J [#permalink]
30 Sep 2015, 22:41
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Isn't d a better answer choice than a. It essentially is saying the same thing but it states the added point of the 'evidence' mentioned.
Dear Avinashs87, I'm happy to respond.
In the question, part of the marketing chief's argument is the idea that (sales campaign) caused (popularity of Product J). In other words, in his mind, the cause was the sales campaign and the effect was the popularity of Product J. The consultant switches around the order of cause and effect, saying that the popularity of Product J was the cause and the effectiveness of the sale campaign was the effect. Thus, he questioned the posited relation of cause and effect. That's choice (A), the OA.
Choice (D) is a good distractor, but think about it. What exactly is the premise? A premise is something factual, something presented as indisputable. What the consultant says appears to be a premise, for example. Here's what's very tricky. If the marketing chief said what he said and no one responded, we would be in the position of having to accept his first sentence as a premise, as factual. BUT because the consultant called that very statement into question, we cannot consider it a premise.
Calling a premise into question would be question factual information. For example, if person #1 said, last year our company sold over 10000 new vehicles, and then person #2 said, more than half of those sales were made the year before and, for inventory purposes, carried over to last year's balance sheets----that would be an example of calling a premise into question. It's basically saying: what you said about the facts is not correct, because those are not the facts.
Does this distinction make sense? Mike
Mike McGarry Magoosh Test Prep
Re: Marketing chief: The aggressive sales campaign of Product J
24 Mar 2016, 14:41