Tanco, anybody? The passage and question resemble
this official question pretty well.
Except questions are a lot of fun, since for once, you get four correct answers to look at and merely have to spot the outlier. Although business topics are my least favorite on the test, I do not let such feelings cloud my reasoning, and I approach the question the same way I would any other, looking for the logical thread that holds everything together.
Bunuel wrote:
The Kale Chip Cooperative, a company based in the United States whose business model is centered on healthy living and eco-friendliness, is hoping to add a new flavor of kale chip to its offerings in each of four regional markets: in the northeast, a dessert chip made with maple sugar; in the south, a spicy Cajun chip; in the northwest, a teriyaki chip; and in the southwest, a cilantro and chili powder chip. After a trial period, the company will decide whether to bring the new flavors to market on a full scale.
Each of the following actions would help The Kale Chip Cooperative evaluate its business strategy EXCEPT:
The
business strategy in question is the plan presented in the first line of the passage, namely whether
The Kale Chip Cooperative should
add a new flavor of kale chip... in each of four regional markets. We just have to keep this plan in mind as we comb through the answer choices.
Quote:
(A) Differentiating the new flavors of kale chips from the company’s regular offerings by distributing the new products in biodegradable containers.
The type of container may draw more or less attention to the new products, but the same could be said of the packaging for
the company's regular offerings. This answer choice relies on what I call one-step-removed logic, which here might go along the lines of allowing people to tell, visually, which packages to buy to taste the new flavors. But we would have to assume that consumers would buy more of these
new products. The part about the
biodegradable containers touches on the
eco-friendliness mentioned in the passage, but what good is a container if people are not interested in the contents? On the whole, this looks like our exception.
Quote:
(B) Tracking sales of all of the company’s products, in addition to whether consumers in one region preferred the new flavors offered in other regions.
Tracking sales makes all the sense in the world, especially within the larger context of
all of the company's products. Perhaps if sales of its kale chips were down in general and the new products were not selling too well, the company could make a more informed decision whether to give the green light to the new flavors. The second part also checks out. If people in one region took to the new flavor offered in another, and that flavor was selling well in its designated region, the company might decide to go ahead with the more in-demand kale chip. Remember, we are looking for an exception, not for information that would logically allow the company to
evaluate its business strategy.
Quote:
(C) Examining the sourcing of ingredients, including how the foods were farmed and transported to regional processing facilities.
The sourcing of ingredients may sound off the mark, but where foods come from and the logistics of how they go from farm to facility could very well affect the bottom line of the company. This makes sense, so keep looking (if you missed (A) or were unsure).
Quote:
(D) Ensuring that none of the new ingredients would alter the taste and texture of the kale chips for which the company is known.
This answer choice reminds me of another
official question, this one on
meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella. A company that sells foodstuffs on a broad scale is most certainly interested in product consistency. You want McDonald's to taste like McDonald's, end of story.
Quote:
(E) Monitoring social media feedback on all of the company’s products by employing an impartial third-party group.
It may take ten more years or so for GMAC™ to write a question acknowledging
social media, but of course, the voice of the people matters when it comes to product development. If you were uncertain about whether the part about
an impartial third-party group was relevant, that is fine. Rather than get caught up in the details of what seems a perfectly reasonable answer, see if there are easier targets. In this case, (A) seems much less relevant than this consideration.
In the end, (A) is the best—by which I mean
the worst—pick of the lot, so it is the answer we should get behind. I hope my analysis proves useful. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.