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.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 350,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

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:

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.

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....

(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.

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...

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....

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!

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.

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

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"

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink]
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

Re: New Evergreen Gum [#permalink]
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

Originally posted on MIT Sloan School of Management : We are busy putting the final touches on our application. We plan to have it go live by July 15...