After Company K released its low-fat butter substitute into

Just to add a subtle but important difference everyone is missing..B is all about the market and our argument is revolving around market share..so B is out

A seems best : In many European countries, satisfactory taste and low-fat content are believed to be entirely contradictory.

Situation: Company K introduced Low fat butter but failed to gain appreciable market share and went back renamed it is the new low fat butter with the intention of winning the market share.

We need to find a weakner which will question the proposed solution

Option C is irrelevant here.
Option D if any gives strengthens the proposal
In option E, points to a one of the markets where the product did well and if any agains strengthens the proposal

We are left with option A and B
Option B gives us an information which if true will weaken the solution proposed off. Having said that we need to find the information which will cast MOST DOUBT. A does that best

Ans is A
_________________

is it some kind of a explanation that u have written because this is not the reason as why B stands out .the fact is B is presenting two opposing views .the argument is about "low fat butter" .now B talks about the shrinking market of both "butter" (normal butter) and "margarine"(a kind of low fat butter) . u cannot make out from B as which market is effectively gaining or loosing !!

I don't think the knowledge of butter is a prerequisite to answer this question..Consider that markets for all kind of fats are shrinking..Now as the market for all kind of fats is shrinking..it is reasonable to believe that the market for the alternatives for these fats is also shrinking..Though not necessary..I see no contrasting views here
Secondly,the reason that B is incorrect is that even though the market as a whole is reducing..the company aims to gain maximum market share..so it helps us nowhere..

And this BTW is the OE..
Hope its clear

This is the correct explanation for ruling out B. The information regarding whether the market is expanding or shrinking doesn't help us in determining why company K's product isn't gaining market share. So it doesn't cast a doubt on the effectiveness of the new solution.



B does tell us that market for both butter and margarine is shrinking, but that knowledge doesn't help us, as explained above. Therefore, B can be ruled out.

when the arguments talk about :"it found that it was unable to achieve any appreciable market share." then it means the market of "butter" ,which in turn comprise of market of "low fat butter" and market of "high fat butter" .
now if u look B : The market for yellow fats such as margarine and butter has been slowly shrinking in many European countries due to the emergence of specialized cheese spreads.---->when u say that "market" is shrinking then effectively u mean that its representation in percentage in decreasing .

think it like this .had B been this : market of low fat butter is shrinking because of some XYZ reason ....then it wud have been a contender .--->because let say that initially market of "low fat butter" and market of "high fat butter" was balanced at 50 /50 and now it has become 25 /75 then the argument to increase the market share of "low fat butter" wud still be considered out of 100 and not 25 !!

In my opinion, when we say the 'market is shrinking,' we mean that in absolute terms. If the market for butter were 1000 Kg and that for margarine were 500 Kg, now they might be down to 800 Kg and 400 kg respectively. This fact doesn't provide any information about market share of company K's product.

Even if the markets were growing in size, we can't conclude anything about the market share of a particular product. The market size, or its growth or decline is irrelevant here. The correct option statement should talk about why company K's product didn't gain market share. A does that perfectly by informing us that compnay K's product is considered low on taste. Hence, A is the right choice.

mikemcgarry
carcass
No where in passage we are told about satisfactory taste.
The taste may be worst also.How can the option A stand then , because it will stand only when taste is satisfactory and butter is low in fats.
Am i missing something??

Couldn't you use that same logic to rule out A? "(A) In many European countries, satisfactory taste and low-fat content are believed to be entirely contradictory." How do we know satisfactory taste and low-fat content are directly related to people NOT purchasing "low-fat butter substitute into European markets"? The truth is the stimulus does not give us this connection. It is entirely possible that the market for low-fat butter substitutes in European markets are aware of the contradiction but still purchase the product anyway.

This would mean that doubt is NOT cast on the solution.

Can anyone explain how this logic is incorrect?

I still dont think the A is the right choice. Anywhere in the passage, the author does not mention anything related to consumer preferences, taste in particular. Yet, in choice B, there is a real alternative that consumers have began drifting to...
The company will focus on being an alternative, but there is already one. So, i think the choice b is the most doubting argument for the plan.

B says that the market for alternatives to butter is increasing. This supports the strategy of the company because the company re-launched its low fat butter under the garb of the low -fat alternative to butter.

Whereas A highlights the fact , that it may be the taste and not the low-fat thing that is responsible for the failure of the initial launch.

We have to create a doubt on the success of the plan and A does create doubt .

Hope the above helps!!


I donot mind Kudos..
_________________

Lets say Market itself is declining for product A, now whatever you do if there is no potential customer obviously sales are low for your product and that lead to decline in Market share as Market is already saturated. Although this option is not full-proofed, Option A also doesn't stand the heat. Everybody knows that Low fat and taste are contradictory and weight conscious people prefer low fat even though it doesn't provide satisfaction.

If in the entire prompts, it was mentioned that European prefer satisfaction over low fat, we can conclude that A weakens the most otherwise not.

Pathetic question.

I was stuck between A and E. However the argument does not say anything about the taste to market share relation which would weaken the effectiveness of the solution.
I concluded with E because it presents another case where the substitute worked without any marketing campaign. This should show that it is not about the marketing campaign.

Please tell where am I wrong.

mikemcgarry
Please see if you can provide valuable inputs.

The emphasis is on the tag line with which the product was marketed.The tag line clearly says "new low-fat alternative to butter" which implies that nothing other than the fat content is different from butter. Hence if the product tastes different from butter and there is a general belief that there is a correlation between taste and fat content it will not go in favor of the product at all. "A" suggests the same. In "E" whatever is applicable to Denmark may not be applicable to all European countries. Hence there is an analogical flaw.So "E" is ruled out.
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Solution: A

This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…casts the most doubt”. This particular problem highlights one of the sub-types of Weaken questions: notice that we are not necessarily looking at a logical argument, but instead at a proposed solution or plan. Whenever we hit these kinds of Weaken questions, we need to mind the gap between the proposed goal of the plan and the methods used to obtain that goal. The disconnect often lies between those two components. In the case of this particular problem, Company K’s plan is to increase market share by pumping money into marketing the new product as the “new low-fat alternative to butter.” The question naturally arises: does marketing a product in a certain way increase market share? Any answer choice that undermines this would weaken the plan.

Answer choice “A” shows that there could be cultural causes unrelated to marketing that may be keeping the substitute from gaining market share across Europe. Naturally, if their marketing plan depends on calling the product “low-fat” – a phrase with negative connotations – market share would not necessarily increase. “A” shows how Company K’s plan might not work, and therefore is the correct answer.

“B” is an answer that uses statistical measures in a deceiving way. It focuses on the decreasing total size of the yellow fats market, but this is substantially different than the notion of market share. Market share (or a percentage of the total) could still proportionally increase, even if the total market is shrinking.

“C” is a classic misdirection answer. It gets us thinking about the sustainability of the market increase, when the original goal is simply to increase market share. “C” indicates that Company K could not maintain the proposed marketing campaign long-term, but the campaign could still be successful in meeting the goal of increasing market share before they are forced to scale back the campaign.

While “D” seems to strengthen the answer (and is therefore wrong!), there is a deeper issue at play here. Answer choice “D” tells us how Company K did something similar in a very different situation. Just because something works in one set of circumstances doesn’t mean it would necessarily work in a different set of circumstances. The Testmaker is trying to use this answer choice to lure novice test takers who are prone to either overgeneralizing or picking Strengthen answers when a Weaken answer is necessary.

Answer choice “E” is completely irrelevant. Showing an increase in market share without marketing in one location doesn’t mean marketing can’t help in another.

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo, Could you please help to explain in a simple language? I could not understand why B is incorrect and why A is the correct answer.
_________________

Let me allow to make it simple.

Let, the market size before shrinking was 1,000 and the market shares of A, B, and C were 50, 150, and 800 i.e., 5%, 15%, and 80% respectively.

Now, after shrinking, the market size becomes 100. The market shares of A, B, and C could still be 5%, 15%, and 80% respectively or any variations. So, market or market size is not correlated with market share.
_________________

Just because the marketing is shrinking doesn't mean a company can't attain appreciable market share. The market might be worth trillions.

E sorta says that the rebranding in isolation was effective, so a marketing campaign on top would assumedly be more effective. Strengthens.

A is the only real weakener as irrespective of any marketing/ rebranding, the product will still be perceived by consumers in the same light.

I agree with you that option A cast Most Doubt; However, is there any hint in the question saying that europeans buy the products based on satisfaction? If not how can we conclude that the europeans buy the products based on satisfaction they may be buying them for fitness or other purposes.