Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Updated on: 13 Jun 2024, 01:21
Originally posted by ExecMBA2010 on 07 Feb 2010, 15:27.
Last edited by Bunuel on 13 Jun 2024, 01:21, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 13 Jun 2024, 01:21, edited 3 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
62% (01:50) correct
38%
(02:06)
wrong
based on 12728
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
ID: 100890
Updated on: 06 Oct 2020, 13:59
Originally posted by GMATNinja on 11 Oct 2017, 06:41.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 06 Oct 2020, 13:59, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 06 Oct 2020, 13:59, edited 1 time in total.
fixed typo, (C)
Kudos
Bookmarks
This passage has a readily identifiable conclusion, so let's start with that. We are told that, "a year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna." The conclusion of the passage is that "the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests."
How does the author arrive at that conclusion?
Now we need to find an answer choice that, if true, most seriously weakens this argument:
But what if profits would have decreased if the ad campaign had not been run? In that case, we would have to compare the cost of the ad campaign not just to the increase in profits but to the sum of the increase in profits and the potential profit loss. Perhaps the cost of the ad campaign exceeded this sum, in which case the author's logic would fail. Choice (E) allows for this possibility by suggesting that Dietz's sales of canned tuna would have been much less than 10 million if it weren't for the ad campaign.
Choice (E) most seriously weakens the author's argument and, thus, is the best answer.
How does the author arrive at that conclusion?
- Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna last year (while the ad campaign was running).
- Dietz sold only 10 million cans of tuna the previous year (before the ad campaign was started).
- We are specifically told that this increase in sales was "directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign." Because this information is given, we don't have to worry about whether any assumptions are required to arrive at this intermediate conclusion.
- However, profits from these additional sales were substantially less the cost of the ad campaign.
- Since the costs substantially exceeded the profits, the author concludes that the ad campaign did nothing to further the company's economic interests.
Now we need to find an answer choice that, if true, most seriously weakens this argument:
Quote:
Last year, the cost of the ad campaign exceeded the additional profits created by the ad campaign. Based on those facts, the author concludes that the campaign did not further the company's economic interests. Regardless of the percentage of total profits accounted for by sales of canned tuna, if costs exceeded profits, according to the author, the campaign did not further the company's economic interests. Choice (A) does not interfere with this logic and can be eliminated.
Quote:
A counterargument to the author's argument might be that the ad campaign expanded Dietz's customer base and, thus, that the initial cost of the ad campaign might be outweighed by increased profits in years to come. However, choice (B) eliminates this possible counterargument and thus strengthens the author's argument. Since we are looking for a weakening statement, choice (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
Choice (C) does not change the fact that the cost of last year's ad campaign exceeded the additional profits created by the ad campaign last year. Choice (C) does not impact the author's reasoning and, thus, can be eliminated.
Quote:
We are told that Dietz profited from the additional sales ("Profits from the additional sales..."). Choice (D) does not give us any new information and does not change the fact that the campaign's costs exceeded the additional profits last year. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
According to the author's argument, the company would have been better off economically if it had not run the ad campaign. The ad campaign seemingly increased costs more than it increased profits. This analysis rests on the assumption that profits would have remained the same (compared to the previous year) if the ad campaign had not been run.
But what if profits would have decreased if the ad campaign had not been run? In that case, we would have to compare the cost of the ad campaign not just to the increase in profits but to the sum of the increase in profits and the potential profit loss. Perhaps the cost of the ad campaign exceeded this sum, in which case the author's logic would fail. Choice (E) allows for this possibility by suggesting that Dietz's sales of canned tuna would have been much less than 10 million if it weren't for the ad campaign.
Choice (E) most seriously weakens the author's argument and, thus, is the best answer.
26 Oct 2012, 17:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
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:
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
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:
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
