Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 01:04 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 01:04
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|                        
User avatar
devil.rocx
User avatar
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Last visit: 04 Dec 2022
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 83
Posts: 39
Kudos: 6
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 20 May 2022, 06:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
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 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:
(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.
Show more



Last Year Sales = 10 M
This Year Sales = 12 M
Profit < Cost = Loss
Conclusion - The ad didn't futher the companie's economic interest.

Now even if choice E is correct.

Let's say without Ad the sales would have been 6 Million
With Ad = 12 Million

And it is given that the profits were less than the cost then it is possible that without ad they might have had low sales but they wouln't have to bear additional loss due to the Ad.
Then how E is correct.
avatar
Jayam12
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2023
Last visit: 19 Jun 2025
Posts: 57
Own Kudos:
33
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Schools: Fuqua '27 (WA)
Schools: Fuqua '27 (WA)
Posts: 57
Kudos: 33
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 26 Apr 2024, 10:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

I still didn't understand one thing .Why is D wrong? This is how I understood D as. We are talking about profits being less than the cost of running the campaign. So for example Revenue is 2x (revenue from sales of additional goods) and cost of running the campaign is 1.5x, then the profit is 0.5x. Obviously 0.5x>1.5x. But what I would consider is the fact that the company made additional profit. Isn't that an economic interest sufficient enough, in favour of Dietz's Foods?

Hence I choose D. It tells us that the company made money (as in profits) out of its sales last year.

Where am I going wrong exactly? Can you please help me out
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [1]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [1]
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 29 Apr 2024, 10:39
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Quote:
­I still didn't understand one thing .Why is D wrong? This is how I understood D as. We are talking about profits being less than the cost of running the campaign. So for example Revenue is 2x (revenue from sales of additional goods) and cost of running the campaign is 1.5x, then the profit is 0.5x. Obviously 0.5x>1.5x. But what I would consider is the fact that the company made additional profit. Isn't that an economic interest sufficient enough, in favour of Dietz's Foods?

Hence I choose D. It tells us that the company made money (as in profits) out of its sales last year.

Where am I going wrong exactly? Can you please help me out
Show more
Let me try to help.

While you have interpreted the choice well, it seems you did not check for one of the essential characteristics of a weakener: A correct weakener has to bring in a new piece of information.

Since the passage already states that the company made profits from the additional sales, choice D does not bring in any new information. Hence, it cannot be a correct weakener.



Hope that helps,
Happy learning!
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
130
Given Kudos: 5,193
Location: India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 534
Kudos: 130
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 23 Dec 2024, 09:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ExecMBA2010
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.

Show Spoiler
ID: 100890
­
Show more

Hi GMATNinja

Can we say option B is wrong due to following reasoning?
This has No Impact, this option doesn’t provide any info on the author’s conclusion. This talks about an increase in customers not attributable to the campaign because the option is talking about loyal customers who are not "new" but "existing" customers.
User avatar
CorporateAsset
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 23 Jul 2025
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 255
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 48
Kudos: 32
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 20 Jun 2025, 05:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(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.

This supports the original decision (the campaign was more effective than cheaper alternatives), but it doesn’t change the fact that the campaign cost more than the profits it generated.

So it defends the form of the campaign, but not its economic outcome.

Doesn’t weaken the conclusion directly.

--------------------------------------

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

This changes everything. It implies that without the campaign, Dietz’s sales likely would have dropped like the rest of the industry.

Instead, Dietz saw a 20% increase.

Therefore, the campaign not only increased sales, but reversed a trend, which may have long-term benefits (e.g., maintaining market share, brand strength).

Strongly weakens the idea that the campaign "did nothing" for Dietz’s economic interests.

Correct Answer: (E)
User avatar
CorporateAsset
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 23 Jul 2025
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 255
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 48
Kudos: 32
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 20 Jun 2025, 05:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Point to prove is that campaign brought benefits & "is" economically justified & not that alternate campaigns "might have been" less effective.
User avatar
Ishan2001
User avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2025
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 2
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 15 Oct 2025, 23:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the campaign was only launched last year and the previous year is where 10 million was sold, how can you conclude that if it wasn't for the campaign sales would've been lesser than 10 million? The campaign was only launched after the 10 million was sold.
GMATNinja
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.
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [1]
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for 16 Oct 2025, 14:09
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ishan2001
If the campaign was only launched last year and the previous year is where 10 million was sold, how can you conclude that if it wasn't for the campaign sales would've been lesser than 10 million? The campaign was only launched after the 10 million was sold.
Show more
We don't know for sure what would have happened. But if (E) is true, then we do know that there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the past five years. That statistic includes last year (the year in which Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna).

If all we knew was that (1) there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna last year and (2) Dietz sold 10 million cans of tuna the previous year, we'd expect sales last year to be LESS than 10 million. Again, we have no way of KNOWING what would have happened, but, if (E) is true, then the available evidence would suggest that Dietz sold fewer than 10 million cans last year.

But they actually sold 12 million, which is reason to belief that the ad campaign actually did help.

For more on that, check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-year-ago-d ... l#p3004433.

A full explanation of this question can be found here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-year-ago-d ... l#p1941975.
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts