GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 06 Dec 2019, 11:49

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 May 2016
Posts: 92
Re: In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2016, 21:25
for me its more of a calculation. Please correct if anything wrong in this
total sale 1000\$
fried sale with old oil 10% = 100%
with new increased by 10% which is now 110\$

now had the option say the total sale increased by more than 10% then we would get 110 as lower percentage value eg new sale now is 1200 so 110 is less than 10% so actually sale decreased.
Had the option say total sale is exactly 10% , which would be 1100 then 110 is again 10%.
Option A says sale total sale increased is less than 10% that means 110 is definitely more that 10% of the value.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 339
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2016, 09:28
total sales =100 (previous year)
as per option A, LY total sales =109 (assume it is 9%)

PY French fry sale = 50
LY French fry sale = 55(50*10%)

so other items sale
PY =50
Last year = 54 (other sale item 8%)

Compare to 8% sale of other item, 10% sounds good to me. so it is wakening the claim that the change has hurt sales of Fast Fries. Actually it didn't.

So option A
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2018
Posts: 5
Re: In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2019, 21:53
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.
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1312
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2019, 18:53
The argument is that using the more healthy oil did not impact sales negatively.
This is supported by the fact sales increase by 10% over the previous year since the oil change

We are then asked to support this.
A is correct because comparatively we can eliminate any other factor that may have increased sales of fries e.g. sales of burger +Fries combos. Since other foods did not increase more than 10%, but fries did, we could reliably conclude that the sales weren't impact negatively.
B comparison between Soft drink + fries is irrelevant to fries oil changes.
C this directly weakens the argument as it states that customers prefer the old oil.
D is incorrect. If the number of customers increased by 20% from the year before the oil change was made, but the sales only increased by just over 10% then this would weaken the argument as we would potentially expect a commensurate 20% increase in fries sales. Since this didn't happen we can eliminate this answer. D is also a typical 'confuse you with numbers instead of percents used in the stem' type question
E is incorrect as it weakens the argument for similar reasons to D
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 37
Re: In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2019, 10:28
Fast food king switched from unhealthy oil to healthy low-fat oil.
Wants to switch back saying change has hurt sales of Fast Fries.
BUT, they sold 10% more fast fries, so how can they say it hurt sales?

a) say fries sales increased 30% 2 years ago, and then only 10% last year. Management might conclude that their sales are being “hurt.” however, if *all* foods they sold only increased by less than 10%, fast fries did fine relative to the other products they sell. The ‘decrease’ of all food sales must be attributable to something else.
b) irrelevant
c) irrelevant
d) just because the number of customers is higher doesn’t mean anything.
e) strengthens fastfood king’s claim, not the claim against it.
Re: In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil   [#permalink] 13 Nov 2019, 10:28

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by