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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
26 Jun 2025, 11:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
The Argument:
Company K launched a low-fat butter substitute in Europe but didn’t get much market share.
So, they re-released it with:
A new name: “new low-fat alternative to butter”
A big marketing campaign.
Their belief: The problem was the original branding, and marketing will fix it.
Question:
Which option casts the most doubt on whether this new strategy (name + marketing) will succeed?
In other words:
Which option suggests that even with the new name and big campaign, it still might not work?
Option A says:
In many European countries, people believe taste and low-fat can’t go together.
This directly challenges the core idea behind the product: that people would want a low-fat butter alternative.
So even if you rebrand it and market it heavily, if consumers already believe that a low-fat product won’t taste good, then:
They won’t buy it.
The marketing campaign won’t change their belief.
The rebranding won’t help.
Therefore, Option A undermines the entire strategy.
But what about the word “many”?
“Many” doesn’t mean all. So why is that enough to doubt the solution?
Because:
Company K is targeting all of Europe, or at least multiple countries.
If many countries (i.e., a significant portion) hold this belief, that’s enough to seriously weaken the chances of the rebranding being widely successful.
The company needs broad improvement in market share, not just in a few places.
So even though “many ≠ all,” it still means that in a lot of the key markets, the strategy probably won’t work.
Conclusion:
Option A is correct because it shows that the real problem is with consumer beliefs, not the name or advertising.
And if people don’t want what you’re selling, no marketing or rebranding will fix that.
Why not B?
B is about an external factor (market decline), not a flaw in the strategy.
It doesn't say why the marketing campaign or name change won't solve the problem.
It’s relevant, but it doesn’t cast the most doubt on the solution’s effectiveness.
That's why A is stronger than B.
Company K launched a low-fat butter substitute in Europe but didn’t get much market share.
So, they re-released it with:
A new name: “new low-fat alternative to butter”
A big marketing campaign.
Their belief: The problem was the original branding, and marketing will fix it.
Question:
Which option casts the most doubt on whether this new strategy (name + marketing) will succeed?
In other words:
Which option suggests that even with the new name and big campaign, it still might not work?
Option A says:
In many European countries, people believe taste and low-fat can’t go together.
This directly challenges the core idea behind the product: that people would want a low-fat butter alternative.
So even if you rebrand it and market it heavily, if consumers already believe that a low-fat product won’t taste good, then:
They won’t buy it.
The marketing campaign won’t change their belief.
The rebranding won’t help.
Therefore, Option A undermines the entire strategy.
But what about the word “many”?
“Many” doesn’t mean all. So why is that enough to doubt the solution?
Because:
Company K is targeting all of Europe, or at least multiple countries.
If many countries (i.e., a significant portion) hold this belief, that’s enough to seriously weaken the chances of the rebranding being widely successful.
The company needs broad improvement in market share, not just in a few places.
So even though “many ≠ all,” it still means that in a lot of the key markets, the strategy probably won’t work.
Conclusion:
Option A is correct because it shows that the real problem is with consumer beliefs, not the name or advertising.
And if people don’t want what you’re selling, no marketing or rebranding will fix that.
Why not B?
B is about an external factor (market decline), not a flaw in the strategy.
It doesn't say why the marketing campaign or name change won't solve the problem.
It’s relevant, but it doesn’t cast the most doubt on the solution’s effectiveness.
That's why A is stronger than B.
26 Jun 2025, 11:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
The Argument:
Company K launched a low-fat butter substitute in Europe but didn’t get much market share.
So, they re-released it with:
A new name: “new low-fat alternative to butter”
A big marketing campaign.
Their belief: The problem was the original branding, and marketing will fix it.
Question:
Which option casts the most doubt on whether this new strategy (name + marketing) will succeed?
In other words:
Which option suggests that even with the new name and big campaign, it still might not work?
Option A says:
In many European countries, people believe taste and low-fat can’t go together.
This directly challenges the core idea behind the product: that people would want a low-fat butter alternative.
So even if you rebrand it and market it heavily, if consumers already believe that a low-fat product won’t taste good, then:
They won’t buy it.
The marketing campaign won’t change their belief.
The rebranding won’t help.
Therefore, Option A undermines the entire strategy.
But what about the word “many”?
“Many” doesn’t mean all. So why is that enough to doubt the solution?
Because:
Company K is targeting all of Europe, or at least multiple countries.
If many countries (i.e., a significant portion) hold this belief, that’s enough to seriously weaken the chances of the rebranding being widely successful.
The company needs broad improvement in market share, not just in a few places.
So even though “many ≠ all,” it still means that in a lot of the key markets, the strategy probably won’t work.
Conclusion:
Option A is correct because it shows that the real problem is with consumer beliefs, not the name or advertising.
And if people don’t want what you’re selling, no marketing or rebranding will fix that.
Why not B?
B is about an external factor (market decline), not a flaw in the strategy.
It doesn't say why the marketing campaign or name change won't solve the problem.
It’s relevant, but it doesn’t cast the most doubt on the solution’s effectiveness.
That's why A is stronger than B.
Company K launched a low-fat butter substitute in Europe but didn’t get much market share.
So, they re-released it with:
A new name: “new low-fat alternative to butter”
A big marketing campaign.
Their belief: The problem was the original branding, and marketing will fix it.
Question:
Which option casts the most doubt on whether this new strategy (name + marketing) will succeed?
In other words:
Which option suggests that even with the new name and big campaign, it still might not work?
Option A says:
In many European countries, people believe taste and low-fat can’t go together.
This directly challenges the core idea behind the product: that people would want a low-fat butter alternative.
So even if you rebrand it and market it heavily, if consumers already believe that a low-fat product won’t taste good, then:
They won’t buy it.
The marketing campaign won’t change their belief.
The rebranding won’t help.
Therefore, Option A undermines the entire strategy.
But what about the word “many”?
“Many” doesn’t mean all. So why is that enough to doubt the solution?
Because:
Company K is targeting all of Europe, or at least multiple countries.
If many countries (i.e., a significant portion) hold this belief, that’s enough to seriously weaken the chances of the rebranding being widely successful.
The company needs broad improvement in market share, not just in a few places.
So even though “many ≠ all,” it still means that in a lot of the key markets, the strategy probably won’t work.
Conclusion:
Option A is correct because it shows that the real problem is with consumer beliefs, not the name or advertising.
And if people don’t want what you’re selling, no marketing or rebranding will fix that.
Why not B?
B is about an external factor (market decline), not a flaw in the strategy.
It doesn't say why the marketing campaign or name change won't solve the problem.
It’s relevant, but it doesn’t cast the most doubt on the solution’s effectiveness.
That's why A is stronger than B.
Moderators:
