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

It is currently 16 Oct 2019, 23:11

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Jamboree GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 272
Location: India
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1873
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2016, 21:34
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.


D simply says that Dietz made money. How much money did it make? This we do not know.
E on the other hand shows that there was a steep decline and because of the advertising campaign, Dietz was able to sell more inspite of the trend.

Does this help?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 387
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2016, 00:47
Now almost always on any CR question try and pre-think before moving on to answer choices.
This will help you choose the correct answer choice over an incorrect one or atleast give you an edge.

In this question the conclusion is - The campaign did nothing to further Diez economic interest.
This is based on the premise that profits from additional sales were lower than cost of advertising.

Now what can weaken this conclusion.

If it can be shown that even though profits from sale were lower than the cost of advertising but the profits were more than any previous year then this decision made good economic sense or if it can be shown than in absence of the advertising the profits would have been even lower then that could also help weaken the conclusion.
Or if it is shown that there would be long term benefits in terms of profit for the company by this decision then too the conclusion is weakened.

Answer choice E is right on the mark in this regard.


Lets see answer choice B now

(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.
This option choice does talk about the fact that the the campaign helped increase sales of canned Tuna but what was the number of the people (mentioned in this choice) who increased the sales is not mentioned. We cannot assume that the sales of the canned tuna increased because of all first time buyers.If that were true then this would be a weakener but we do not know what is the number of first time buyers out of 12 million who have helped increase the sales.
Option choice E is a much clear and an unambiguous choice in this respect.

Hope this helps !!
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2400
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2017, 07:16
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.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - Advertising campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests since Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign

(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits. - Irrelevant - we are only concerned about profit and advertising cost spent for canned tuna
(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. - Incorrect - if at all this strengthens that advertising campaign was not very useful
(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. - Irrelevant
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year. - Irrelevant - we are evaluating the ROI of the advertising campaign
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna. - Correct - In absence of advertising campaign, the sales would have fallen further to less than 10 million cans. Thus, the advertising campaign was useful.

Answer E
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1195
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2017, 07:27
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. -It is out of scope of the argument. We are not concerned about the Dietz Foods as a whole.
(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. -Irrelevant
(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. -We are not bothered about the alternative source of marketing.
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year. -This is the information already given in the passage.
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna. -Correct. If there was an industry wide depression then the increase in sales are definitely a boost to the company.
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 39
Location: Singapore
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V24
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.66
WE: Social Work (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2019, 21:45
GMATNinja wrote:
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:

Quote:
(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.

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:
(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.

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:
(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.

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.

Quote:
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.

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:
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.

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.


This is an awesome explanation! I personally like the way GMAT Ninja dissects the arguments and evaluates each choice to show why a particular choice is right and most importantly why an answer choice is WRONG! This is called learning boy!
I have a question that comes as a parallel to the assumption in the argument.
So, if I have an asset which has a value of $10 now, and the value of the asset goes down to $8 in next two months, I somehow chose to trade it for $9 after two months when the asset value is actually $8 according to the market. So can I say that I received $1 dollar profit in accounting books based on the market value of the asset after 2 months, even if I suffered $1 loss according to my initial cost?

Please clarify. Thanks in advance!
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5916
Re: This past year, Jack's Packaged Goods launched a yearlong  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2019, 00:58
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Re: This past year, Jack's Packaged Goods launched a yearlong   [#permalink] 27 Aug 2019, 00:58

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





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