A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for

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?

• 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:


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.