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

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.

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 did not exceed 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.

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.

Dear GMATNinja and other experts, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354

although I read the whole tread, I am not convinced why B is incorrect.
I have a different interpretation of B, which still makes me think B is the correct answer.

B says ad champing attracts new customers who are already loyal customers of other Dietz produces. I thinks B does imply expansion of the customer base, although the number of the customer may be the same. no matter whether the number of customers increases or keeps same,B does expand the customer base. what impact the profit does not depend on how many people buy, but how much they pay.
in other words, a group of customers generally buy other Dietz products, after the ad champing, the same group customers will buy canned tuna that they did not buy in the past and continue to buy other Dietz products.

although as stimulus says ad champing attracted new customers, I think B does not contrast what stimulus says, new customers are those who did not not buy canned tuna but will begin to do so.

please help...

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 did not exceed 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.

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

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.

I gone though all the replies mentioned in the quetions and no one seems to be talking about B.

In option 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."

From this we can say that since these are loyal customer who previously did not buy canned tuna (reason for which may be anything) but now this year because of campaign they have brought it so going forward they are expected to buy canned tuna even when there is no compaign because they are loyal to the company.

Can someone pls help me understand flow in this reasoning..

Thanks in advance for your help

I gone though all the replies mentioned in the quetions and no one seems to be talking about B.

In option 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."

From this we can say that since these are loyal customer who previously did not buy canned tuna (reason for which may be anything) but now this year because of campaign they have brought it so going forward they are expected to buy canned tuna even when there is no compaign because they are loyal to the company.

Can someone pls help me understand flow in this reasoning..

Thanks in advance for your help

GMATNinja - Could you please help clarify a doubt I'm having regarding option C?

In the above explanation you stated that the cost of last year's campaign did not exceed the additional profits created by the ad campaign. I think it would be "did exceed", however I have another doubt regarding this one. If a cheaper ad would have meant fewer customers, it would have meant lesser sales too, making choice C the better option in my mind. Can this assumption be negated by thinking that "fewer customers does not necessarily mean lesser sales"? In that case choice C can be eliminated. Thanks for your help !

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.