harkabir wrote:
MacFauz wrote:
Fastfood King claims that their sales had been hurt by the change. The argument says that the claim was not true as the sales had increased by 10%. If the sales of other items had increased by 20% ( or anything more than 10%) then fastfood king could have a valid argument that sales had been hurt because sales of this product had not increased as much as it had for other products.
A clearly provides a solution and hence answer is A.
Hi Fauz
Shouldn't it be E? The oil used to cook fries has been changed. E clearly points out that the growth in sales after the change in oil has dropped from 20% to 10%. Further the claims made by Fast Food King and by examiner relate to the sale of fries only and not to the total sales of the restaurant.
What do you think?
Hi
the question says, "Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the
argument against Fastfood King's claim?"
what is the claim? that the sales dropped. E supports the claim. (although sales did not drop, the rate of growth dropped)
Thus, A is a better fit. All sales are experiencing similar growth this year, so it is quite likely that oil is not the reason. That's how A weakens the claim.
close
