GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Aug 2018, 06:10

### 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

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

# A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 506
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2013, 12:22
@ Rajat @ e-gmat,

As expected from you, a stunning explanation. Could you please also explain this question
guillemots-are-birds-for-arctic-regions-they-feed-on-fish-82065.html
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Retired Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 506
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2013, 22:19
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Manager
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 193
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2013, 10:59
Its solved largely by POE

E says that even though, the costs of advertisements were higher than the profits from the sales, the company is better of selling more of the stuff than facing steep decline in sales (which could also result in wastage of what was processed).
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 598
Schools: Cambridge'16

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2013, 22:27
Conclusion is that advertising campaign did nothing for economic interest (profit) because of its high cost. To weaken it one should prove that the interest related to campaign at least was higher. The only choice considering it is B
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2619

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2013, 03:31
WaterFlowsUp wrote:

Hi,

Surely, I can chime in. But it would be great if you can share your specific doubt on that thread because that would greatly cut down my time in responding.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 211

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2013, 00:35
THIS IS a hard question and I want to follow this one.

normally, we prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices.

can we do so for this question. any one can do, please do so.
_________________

If anyone in this gmat forum is in England,Britain, pls, email to me, (thanghnvn@gmail.com) . I have some questions and need your advise. Thank a lot.

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 314
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2014, 02:12
I am not very clear about why is B wrong.
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 211

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2014, 07:27
for some strenthen/weaken, it is good to prethink an assumption. for others, it is good to prethink a strengthener/weakener directly without thinking of assumption. this is the rule by manhantan

this question is typical of the type in which prethinking of an assumption is good.

why there is no economic justification? we need to challenge the argument to find an assumption.

it is possible that the economic benifit can appear in the following years, not now. this is a challenge.

assumption is that there is no benifit in the following years.

going to answer choices, we see that E closely match.
_________________

If anyone in this gmat forum is in England,Britain, pls, email to me, (thanghnvn@gmail.com) . I have some questions and need your advise. Thank a lot.

Current Student
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 302
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q44 V34
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.58
WE: Analyst (Accounting)

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2014, 06:19
I was stuck between E and C here.

I eliminated E thinking that in the last 5 years (including the year in which 12MN (Yr 5 - and not Yr6) and 10MN (Yr 4) tins were sold) the industry was in a declining trend. So had the company not advertised so heavily in Yr 5, its sales would have been much lesser than 10MN tins, may be say 8MN tins (if the industry decline rate was 20%). Just because it advertised heavily it had 20% more sales than each of its competitors is the market. This certainly now is an economic benefit! :D
_________________

Cheers!!

JA
If you like my post, let me know. Give me a kudos!

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 86
Schools: Haas '16, AGSM '16

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2015, 21:51
Explanation for choice E

Type : weaken

conclusion: Campaign is fail

Assumption: increase in sales is not enough to offset the campaign cost.

Weaken: increase in sales do somehow offset the campaign cost and make profit for the companies.

Choice E is the best answer: the campaign do help to accelerate the sales of the company inspite of the declined tendency of the market
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1888

### Show Tags

21 May 2015, 06:24
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.
The conclusion is that the campaign was not economically beneficial because profits from sales were less than the cost of the campaign.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits. The percentage of profit is not relevant.
(B) Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.Loyal customers of other products doesn't necessarily mean canned tuna profits.
(C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year. out of scope
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year. Last year is not relevant.
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna. The industry-wide decline may have been responsible for the lower profits, rather than the effectiveness of the campaign.
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 212

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2015, 07:40
egmat wrote:
xmizer wrote:
Well, if you mean "economically" as in sales, then yeah, I suppose in this case, the company is furthered economically. But I think the term "economically" is vague. It can mean market share, profits, revenue, etc. If you are talking about profits, the company is not furthered economically at all since the ad campaign costs more than the profits of the additional sales, which to me, means the ad campaign actually made the company lose money.

To highlight my point, if the company decided to give all the tuna away for free, I am sure they can sell millions more cans of tuna. They might even go bankrupt in the process but in this example, it would still consider it "furthering the company economically", since there is an increase in sales. But from a profit-motive standpoint, I fail to see how this is economically beneficial.

Hi,

In almost all cases, economic interests imply profits. A company generally cannot further its economic interests by taking a hit on its bottom line or profits. The interpretation of "economic interest" is not different in this question. It means profits.

However, Option E DOES SUGGEST that the company might have made a PROFIT from the campaign.

To understand this, you need to read the passage carefully.

A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

Tell me when the passage is computing the profits from "additional sales", what is the additional sales it is considering? The additional sales it is looking at is 2 million cans.

However, option E suggests that the additional sales is much more than 2 millions cans (remember the word "Steep decline").

So, if the additional sales is much more than 2 million cans, then the profits from the campaign will also be much higher than as computed in the passage. It indicates that probably, the campaign did further the economic interests (profits) of the company. This thing (indicating that the opposite of conclusion is true) is the job of a weakener and option E does that aptly.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

@Chiranjeev , egmat

Hi i have one doubt here as argument has clearly mentioned that last year 10 million cans were sold and this year its 12 million then how can you say it is more then 2 millions.

Thanks.
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 15

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2015, 02:08
egmat wrote:
Before we get to the logic of this question, lets understand the role a weakener should play:

A weakener decreases your belief in the conclusion. This means, that after reading the correct weakener choice and one should say that "I do not believe as strongly in the conclusion now" . Note, a weakener does not have to disprove the conclusion.

Lets now see the argument in the light of the above principle. We will first focus on the conclusion:

Conclusion: Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

What does the conclusion mean: Considering that economic interests == profits, either short term or long term, the conclusion implies that the advertising campaign did not contribute to either.
Why does the author say this: The author makes this statement because the cost of the campaign is higher than the incremental sales (2 million cans), allegedly because of the campaign.

What could be some weakeners:
There could be two potential ways to weaken this argument:
1. If an answer choice projects the possibility that the campaign may have contributed for more than 2 million cans of sales.
2. If an answer choice projects the possibility that the new customers would become repeat customers; i.e. they would bring more sales in the future. Note this again means that the benefit from the campaign would be greater than the 2 million cans.

Choice E

1. Choice E projects the possibility that the campaign may have contributed for more than 2 million cans of sales. Hence is the correct choice.

Choice C

Choice C is actually completely irrelevant. lets look at choice C to understand why:
Quote:
A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.

This is talking about a completely different campaign. It has nothing to do with whether the current campaign contributed to furthering Dietz's economic interests.

TakeAway: A weakener provides new information, which in the light of the information presented in the argument, reduces your belief in the conclusion. Secondly, a majority (95%+) of Weaken Questions have only one weakener.

-Rajat

Intern
Joined: 17 May 2015
Posts: 38

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2015, 06:06
ExecMBA2010 wrote:
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.
(B) Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.
(C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.

Official Guide 12 Question

 Question: 34 Page: 39 Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:

Can someone tell me why not B. B too improved the sales ?
Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2012
Posts: 17

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2016, 17:18
chiranjeev12 wrote:
PS: If you think C could have been the answer, then look again into it. It used unclear words two times within one sentence: "less expensive" - how much less - 10%, 20%, 90%?; "significantly fewer new customers" - how few - 60% less, 90%, 99%? The statement is too weak to be an answer.

blueseas wrote:

lets take 5 years as 1 2 3 4 5
year 1 =30 tuna sold
year 2 =25 tuna sold
year 3 =20 tuna sold
year 4 =15 tuna sold
year 5 =10 tuna sold
year 6 =12 tuna sold
since tuna selling was on a steep(was decreasing ) so increase in 2 tuna dont you think furthered economically.
hope it helps

let me know if you have doubt.

Hope to revive this thread. I am a little confused about (E) because my thought process was:

From the question

Advertising campaign (AC) = 2 million sales
Cost of AC > profit from 2 million sales
Thus Dietz didn't benefit from the additional 2 million sales (as money was squandered in AC)

I then asked: "how much of a loss?" The stimulus states that the Profits from 2 millions sales were "SUBSTANTIALLY" less than the cost of AC. But what does substantially mean? 20% 50% 80%?

From (E)
I then considered: "what is a 'STEEP' decline" If e.g. 1million decrease in sales is considered a steep decline - then Dietz who ended the year on 12m sales from 10m sales because of AC, but otherwise may have ended on 9m sales - so a 1m sales decline. Is the profit from 1m sales > the additional cost of AC (that the additional 2m sales did not cover).

Hope this makes sense. Put another way, I am comparing Before AC (e.g. 9m sales) and After AC (as we know - 12m sales) scenario - and whether the cost of AC is covered.

Put another way yet again - am I correct in my understanding that "economic interest" means overall profit. I would assume that AC supported Dietz's economic interest if Dietz would have made "more of a loss" otherwise. So I'm focusing on profits opposed to hard sales numbers (millions of sales). I just didn't feel that (E) gave me this information..

I really don't know if I'm overthinking this?.. Feedback would be appreciated so that I know how to think about such scenarios in the future!

Thanks
Jamboree GMAT Instructor
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 276
Location: India

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2016, 00:30
1
I would try a simpler approach. Sales of "Dietz's" canned Tuna increased to 12 million from 10 million last year. Although there was a two million increase because of a new advertisement campaign but the investment was more than the profit. Hence the author concludes the advertisement campaign did nothing. Any answer choice which proves the campaign at least did have some contribution is the answer. "E" states there had been a continuous decline for the last five years. Hence even if sales increased by two million in the present year the campaign must have been responsible for that.
_________________

Aryama Dutta Saikia
Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd.

Current Student
Joined: 08 Jan 2015
Posts: 85
Location: Thailand
GMAT 1: 540 Q41 V23
GMAT 2: 570 Q44 V24
GMAT 3: 550 Q44 V21
GMAT 4: 660 Q48 V33
GPA: 3.31
WE: Science (Other)

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2016, 08:54
Though E is indeed correct, I still don't understand why B is wrong.

If the company has more loyal customers, it will definitely did something good for company's further economic interest.
Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2016
Posts: 54

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2016, 01:43
thangvietnam wrote:
why B is wrong?

B said the the first customers are become the loyal customer who buy in the future. This increase the belief that economic interest appear in the future. B is also a correct one.

Nope, B said:
(B) Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.

=> who bought this canned tuna did know about Dietz's products already before the marketing campaign. Hence, the campaign played no role here. This one is exactly the opposite.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------
Please kudos me if this helps. Thank you.

Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Posts: 1

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2016, 07:42
why not B
the conclusion said the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.
in E, although it does prove that the campaign creates economic interests, but no further interests...
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising &nbs [#permalink] 21 Apr 2016, 07:42

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 46 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.