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

It is currently 02 Aug 2015, 08:30
GMAT Club Tests

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

New Evergreen Gum

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 503
Location: 55405
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 0

New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 06:51
1
This post received
KUDOS
This question was posted on TestMagic, and I think (to me), it's a tougher question. I don't know the answer:


New Evergreen Gum (NEG) has twice as much flavour for your money as Spring Mint Gum (SMG), and we can prove it. You see a stick of NEG is twice as large as a stick of SMG, and the more gum, th more flavour.

Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
1.A package of SMG contains twice as many sticks as a package og NEG.
2.SMG has more concentrated flavour than NEG.
3.A stick of NEG weights only 50% as much as a stick of SMG.
4.A package of NEG costs twice as much as a package of SMG.
5.People surveyed indicated a preference for EGM over SMG.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 10:23
Choice C is the strongest rebuttal (it refers right to the point the author is trying to make: the bigger - the better).

A and D are not strong enough
B doesn't provide with hard numbers;
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: california
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 10:32
I would go with A:

B, D, & E do not show anything ( they don't present us with any meaningful information to undermine the advertisement)...

thus we are left with A & C:

the answer is A b/c it DIRECTLY attacks the advertisement...remember we are trying to undermine the advertisement which states--> the more gum the more flavor...and further states that it's pieces are twice as big as the competitor.....well what better way to counter that than to show that even though the pieces might be twice as big as the competitor, the competitor has twice as many pieces---->

A EQUALIZES THE TWO BRANDS....therefore it is correct...

C is incorrect b/c, although it says that NEG sticks weigh 50% less that SMG...it does not show that SMG gives you more gum....which is the issue at hand ...MORE GUM......so SMG could be using a chemical that weighs more, but does that mean that SMG gives you more gum?.....i don't think it does....

i go with A
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Posts: 233
Location: United States
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 10:52
I vote for D.

(A) Contains twice as many sticks but the comparison is done on just one stick. So not valid.
(B) SMG may have more flavor than NEG but is it per stick or per certain length? Not known so can't bet on it.
(C) Doesn't matter how much the stick weighs, it can still provide more flavor. Flavor is the real argument not weight.
(D) If the price is twice as much then NEG is not different than SMG because the argument depends on the "value", which with twice as much money is not really true here. Weakens the argument.
(E) People survey... it's out of scope.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: california
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 10:59
good call wonder_gmat....i didn't read D closely enough....i change my answer to D b/c it provides full information on whether you do get more flavor for your money...effectively equalizing the two brands...

However I feel that
A is incomplete b/c it does not mention how much the competitor (SMG)costs....it does have double the sticks but it might cost 10 times more...terrible mistake on my part...

i vote D is the best answer also...
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 11:02
wonder_gmat
what makes you think that both gums contain equal number of sticks?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: california
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 11:07
you know i thought about it....and i don't like D either....i'm at odds...though question....i stick with A even though it does not provide any information on price....i feel it does enough to EQUALIZE the two brands....
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Posts: 233
Location: United States
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 11:15
vaka wrote:
wonder_gmat
what makes you think that both gums contain equal number of sticks?

Simple argument from the advertisement that compares one brand to another for value. And if you're comparing two things for better value then isn't it only fair to compare both in equal quantity per price!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 11:26
imo the argument assumes that the prices are equal (per stick).
the author talks about a stick of the gum and about it's size that's why imo the subject of this argument is: the stick, the size, the flavour. When we approach with one more attribute (weight) and reevaluate both gums, we see that SMG stick is twice as flavoury.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: california
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 11:51
i agree with you vaka (that price is assumed to be equal), but the issue is HOW MUCH GUM you get for that price...and A shows taht you get the same amount....b/c one is twice as big, but the other has twice as much THERFORE EQUAL

that's why i still say A
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 503
Location: 55405
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 12:16
I went with B. "SMG has more concentrated flavour than NEG"

"New Evergreen Gum (NEG) has twice as much flavour for your money as Spring Mint Gum (SMG), and we can prove it. You see a stick of NEG is twice as large as a stick of SMG, and the more gum, th more flavour. "

Because B directly and totally refutes the conclusion of the argument: "and the more gum, the more flavour"
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 12:23
:nopem
operative words are: a stick of NEG is twice as large as a stick of SMG, and the more gum, the more flavour.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 971
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

hale to the gum [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 19:20
go for A too..twice the number, equals the flavor. :wink:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 30
Location: CA
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Nov 2003, 23:06
C ?
GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 770
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 0

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 15 Nov 2003, 00:10
stoolfi wrote:
This question was posted on TestMagic, and I think (to me), it's a tougher question. I don't know the answer:


New Evergreen Gum (NEG) has twice as much flavour for your money as Spring Mint Gum (SMG), and we can prove it. You see a stick of NEG is twice as large as a stick of SMG, and the more gum, th more flavour.

Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
1.A package of SMG contains twice as many sticks as a package og NEG.
2.SMG has more concentrated flavour than NEG.
3.A stick of NEG weights only 50% as much as a stick of SMG.
4.A package of NEG costs twice as much as a package of SMG.
5.People surveyed indicated a preference for EGM over SMG.


I don't think that this question is quoted correctly. IMO, 1,2, and 4 all tend to undermine the claim since they show a way that the claim would be false, everything else being equal (since each of the statements only attacks one of the dimensions, to me they are all equivalent as far as which one is the "best"). The original question was written by Richard Bowles and is as follows:

New Evergreen Gum has twice as much flavour for your money as Spring Mint Gum, and we can prove it. You see, a stick of Evergreen Gum is twice as large as a stick of Spring Mint Gum, and the more gum, the more flavour.

Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?


I only
II only
I and II only
II and III only
I, II and III
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 12

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2008, 09:11
This is an old one but I dont see an OA. I am with D.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2008, 15:49
stoolfi wrote:
This question was posted on TestMagic, and I think (to me), it's a tougher question. I don't know the answer:


New Evergreen Gum (NEG) has twice as much flavour for your money as Spring Mint Gum (SMG), and we can prove it. You see a stick of NEG is twice as large as a stick of SMG, and the more gum, th more flavour.

Which of the following, if true, would undermine the persuasive appeal of the above advertisement?
1.A package of SMG contains twice as many sticks as a package og NEG.
2.SMG has more concentrated flavour than NEG.
3.A stick of NEG weights only 50% as much as a stick of SMG.
4.A package of NEG costs twice as much as a package of SMG.
5.People surveyed indicated a preference for EGM over SMG.


I think it is B. the argument tries to show that one brand of gum has more flavor for your money based on a faulty condition: its size. He equates the size and flavor. This argument can then be weakened, if we can show that the size of the stick is irrelevant and that the flavor is based on concentration.

1) the number of sticks in the package is irrelevant, because if NEG is ALOT more flavorful than SMG, then even the sum of flavor of all the sticks of SMG may still be less than NEG
3) useless unless there is some correlation between weight and flavor
4) again, useless unless there is some correlation between cost and flavor
5) this doesnt prove anything
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

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

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2008, 07:29
D for me...whats the OA?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 251
Schools: Ross, Kellogg, Darden (i/v)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 03 Feb 2008, 06:08
This is very clearly a "D".
Value for money is the key argument and D weakens that.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 298
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink] New post 03 Feb 2008, 11:28
Argument bases its conclusion on assumption that the concentration of flavor is same in both NEG an SMG. B clearly unermines this assumption.
Re: New Evergreen Gum   [#permalink] 03 Feb 2008, 11:28

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic New to this Forum...New to GMAT bramasu 3 19 Jun 2007, 03:46
HI..NEW HERE sheraton 1 27 Sep 2006, 22:06
NEW to the Club ocean 0 06 Aug 2006, 19:55
New Mexico amansingla4 13 15 May 2006, 02:23
news chillpill 3 31 Mar 2006, 23:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by

New Evergreen Gum

  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®.