Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in

Suppose one brand makes dog food with fewer varieties of meat but sells them at bargain prices for mass consumers and another makes dog food with more varieties at premium prices for high-end customers. In that case, there will be no correlation between the absolute variety of meat in the dog food across different brands because they have separate consumer bases and the ratio of no. of consumers to the variety of meat may not matter.

However, if one brand decreases the variety of meat in its product, consumers may stop buying it in that they may find the dog food too expensive for such a smaller variety of meat.

Choice D identifies this flaw in the sales analyst's argument.­

where does the company's spokesperson particularly say "reduces the type of meat" or indirectly say that it plans to decrease its types of meat varieties in the dog food. It simply says that "the plan to include fewer varities", so as I can infer from this is that it could be a first time introduction of dog food by Brand X on the market or it could be reduction in the already being-sold product. So, in that case how can we infer D from this, pls explain.

It doesn’t say that, neither is that a necessary condition. If you read carefully my reply, and the argument you’ll notice “decrease” in the variety of meat is what we are concerned with, now it doesn’t really matter whether the decrease is from an earlier brand X product’s variety or it is based upon some competitor’s product that the company was comparing its product with, or perhaps, it is from the estimated average market price for its first ever launch of a product with “N” varieties of meat that it was targeting but ended up decreasing the variety because of increased mfg costs and so on.

What we need to see here is the use of the word “fewer” and NOT “few” whixh means we can agree that there was a “comparison” with something. And hence, choice D talking about this decrease stands correct.

Posted from my mobile device

­

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Conclusion: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is not doomed to failure and will not cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

Premise: Marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

Assumptions: (1) There’s no other way to interpret the evidence. Because marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food, it is reasonable for the sales analyst to conclude that the plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is not doomed to failure and will not cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

(2) There are no problems with the plan. The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is not doomed to failure and will in fact not cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

The question stem asks Which of the following is the most serious criticism, so this is a flaw question. The argument uses both a planning and an interpretation of evidence reasoning pattern. This can be identified by recognizing that the passage references The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food and that this proposed course of action is expected to work based on the presentation of a specific fact as evidence, in this case that marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

The standard assumption of a planning reasoning pattern is that there are no problems with the plan. The standard assumption of an interpretation of evidence reasoning pattern is that there is no other way to interpret the facts. Because this is a flaw question, the correct answer will demonstrate that the plan will not work or that the evidence has been interpreted incorrectly. In other words, that The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is doomed to failure and it will certainly cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food, or that the marketing studies that show there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food have been incorrectly interpreted as support for the plan. Evaluate the answer choices, looking for a choice that matches one of these ideas.

Choice A: No. This choice cannot be matched to the facts of the argument. Referring to specific statistics from the studies would not affect the efficacy of the plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food.

Choice B: No. This choice cannot be matched to the facts of the argument. Even if The sales analyst does not specifically refer to Brand X dog food, there is no reason to indicate that the studies of other dog foods could not be applied reasonably to Brand X dog food.

Choice C: This choice is out of scope. There is nothing to indicate that The sales analyst’s argument is based on outmoded ideas of causality.

Choice D: Correct. This choice is supported by the argument. That The sales analyst refers to how many varieties of meat are in a dog food rather than to the decrease in the number of varieties of meat in the dog food addresses a shift in language occurring in the sales analyst’s evidence that marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

Choice E: This choice is out of scope. The passage does not indicate that the sales analyst’s argument can be extended to all dog food ingredients.

The correct answer is choice D.

If there is no correlation between x and y, would a decrease in x affect y? What am I missing?