Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is doomed to failure. It will certainly cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.
Sales analyst: Actually, 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.
Which of the following is the most serious criticism of the sales analyst’s argument?
(A) The sales analyst does not refer to any specific statistics.
(B) The sales analyst does not specifically refer to Brand X dog food.
(C) The sales analyst’s argument is based on outmoded ideas of causality.
(D) 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.
(E) The sales analyst presents her evidence in a manner designed to disprove any relationship between ingredients and dog food sales.
tonmoybaruah31
In this question, it is stated that G Bell sells 80%, whereas H Wells sells 50% of their mobile phones, and on the basis of this, it is claimed that G Bell is the leading seller of mobile phones. Let’s say G Bell produces 100 phones, it sells 80 phones. Let’s say H Wells produces 200 phones, it sells 100 phones. Although it sold 50% of phones, H Wells still has a greater number of items sold than G Bell. So prethinking the flaw would be something related to the no of handsets that are produced and thus D is the clear winner Hope this helps
This is the question