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

It is currently 14 Nov 2018, 03:24

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • $450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

     November 15, 2018

     November 15, 2018

     10:00 PM MST

     11:00 PM MST

    EMPOWERgmat is giving away the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth $100 with the 3 Month Pack ($299)
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 62
Location: India
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2017, 23:04
[quote="AbdurRakib"]than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Argument: such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.
-- it does talk about prospect of sale increase but solely depend on a market research of only the chain's existing customers

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.
-- it does not talk about prospect of increase in sale

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.
-- tempting!, but it talks about hamburger not veg-sandwich

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.
-- it does talk about prospect of increase in sale

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.
-- it strengthens the argument that the sale may not increase
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Dec 2017
Posts: 12
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2018, 20:35
This is why I don't like CR. You can add so many assumptions that the question writers are not necessarily considering. The OA in option A says that people who had positive responses might have been very little in number. I agree. With option D, we are given that when at least one person is vegetarian, then the rest of the group will go vegetarian that day. But that's assuming too much. As someone mentioned above, it all depends on frequency. What if only 1 vegetarian comes in for the whole year, is that a reason to keep it on the menu? Is there an angle that I'm not seeing?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jan 2018
Posts: 16
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.17
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2018, 22:33
I believe option A also significantly weakens the argument due to the phase "many of the chain's customers". This shows that the reason the sandwich sales are low is due to the fact that many customers have not tried it as yet. By showing that most of the customers who have tried the sandwich are satisfied with it, we are given a reason to be optimistic that sales will improve as more customers try the sandwich and thus make the chain more profitable.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2093
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Mar 2018, 18:46
1
Quote:
Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always centered on hamburger, added its first vegetarian sandwich, much lower in fat than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.

abhigulia3006 wrote:
I believe option A also significantly weakens the argument due to the phase "many of the chain's customers". This shows that the reason the sandwich sales are low is due to the fact that many customers have not tried it as yet. By showing that most of the customers who have tried the sandwich are satisfied with it, we are given a reason to be optimistic that sales will improve as more customers try the sandwich and thus make the chain more profitable.

Regarding choice (A), it's easy to read this option and think, "Oh good! This is evidence that sales will improve as more customers try the sandwich!"

But the passage SPECIFICALLY tells us that an increase in sales is unlikely. So we don't care what portion of the customers have tried the sandwich. We can't contradict the given information, so (A) must be eliminated.

KillerGMAT wrote:
This is why I don't like CR. You can add so many assumptions that the question writers are not necessarily considering. The OA in option A says that people who had positive responses might have been very little in number. I agree. With option D, we are given that when at least one person is vegetarian, then the rest of the group will go vegetarian that day. But that's assuming too much. As someone mentioned above, it all depends on frequency. What if only 1 vegetarian comes in for the whole year, is that a reason to keep it on the menu? Is there an angle that I'm not seeing?

As for choice (D), of course it is possible that this scenario only applies to one vegetarian per year. But think about the author's argument:

  • The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu.
  • Such an increase is unlikely.
  • Therefore, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

If we are TOLD that sales will probably not increase, why would we want to keep it on the menu? Choice (D) gives us a very good reason to keep it on the menu. Even if sales of the vegetarian sandwich do not increase, simply having it on the menu MIGHT attract groups that would otherwise avoid the restaurant.

The author's argument is based on sales of the sandwich itself. Choice (D) suggests that there are other benefits to having the sandwich on the menu. This certainly does not PROVE that keeping it on the menu will be profitable. However, it certainly weakens the author's argument by suggesting that the author is failing to consider a potential benefit.

Choice (D) suggests that the author's argument is incomplete, so it is the best answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

VP
VP
User avatar
V
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1282
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GMAT 1: 480 Q38 V22
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Mar 2018, 09:46
AbdurRakib wrote:
Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always centered on hamburger, added its first vegetarian sandwich, much lower in fat than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.

OG 2017 New Question


(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it. Surveys can be unreliable.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors. Irrelevant

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown. Sales can improve now

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options. Correct. Give some hope to the chain owners

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger. Out of scope
_________________

"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 65
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V30
GPA: 3.35
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2018, 05:02
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always centered on hamburger, added its first vegetarian sandwich, much lower in fat than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.

abhigulia3006 wrote:
I believe option A also significantly weakens the argument due to the phase "many of the chain's customers". This shows that the reason the sandwich sales are low is due to the fact that many customers have not tried it as yet. By showing that most of the customers who have tried the sandwich are satisfied with it, we are given a reason to be optimistic that sales will improve as more customers try the sandwich and thus make the chain more profitable.

Regarding choice (A), it's easy to read this option and think, "Oh good! This is evidence that sales will improve as more customers try the sandwich!"

But the passage SPECIFICALLY tells us that an increase in sales is unlikely. So we don't care what portion of the customers have tried the sandwich. We can't contradict the given information, so (A) must be eliminated.

KillerGMAT wrote:
This is why I don't like CR. You can add so many assumptions that the question writers are not necessarily considering. The OA in option A says that people who had positive responses might have been very little in number. I agree. With option D, we are given that when at least one person is vegetarian, then the rest of the group will go vegetarian that day. But that's assuming too much. As someone mentioned above, it all depends on frequency. What if only 1 vegetarian comes in for the whole year, is that a reason to keep it on the menu? Is there an angle that I'm not seeing?

As for choice (D), of course it is possible that this scenario only applies to one vegetarian per year. But think about the author's argument:

  • The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu.
  • Such an increase is unlikely.
  • Therefore, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

If we are TOLD that sales will probably not increase, why would we want to keep it on the menu? Choice (D) gives us a very good reason to keep it on the menu. Even if sales of the vegetarian sandwich do not increase, simply having it on the menu MIGHT attract groups that would otherwise avoid the restaurant.

The author's argument is based on sales of the sandwich itself. Choice (D) suggests that there are other benefits to having the sandwich on the menu. This certainly does not PROVE that keeping it on the menu will be profitable. However, it certainly weakens the author's argument by suggesting that the author is failing to consider a potential benefit.

Choice (D) suggests that the author's argument is incomplete, so it is the best answer.

I hope that helps!


cost of having it on the menu:does it include only the advertising cost or the advertising and the cost of preparing the sandwich
as per the argument:there was an heavy investment in the advertising of the new sandwich.the cost of having the sandwich on the menu cannot be recovered unless the sale grows to 4 times.
i think it only talks about the advertising expenses,but not the making charges of sandwich.

ENLIGHTEN ME SIR!!
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 633
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Apr 2018, 18:58
D suggests that If they were to remove the Veg menu item, The groups who are likely to attend the restaurant would probably bypass the restaurant to some other place where Veg menu is available. Thereby, decreasing the sales of other items and decreasing the profit.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jul 2018
Posts: 10
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2018, 08:17
you said " no one guarantee that the people satisfied of the veg sandwich will come again and consume it "
And, what guarantee you that the group of dinners will all of them consume something at that restaurant ! Maybe , just the friend who want the veg sandwich who will consume it , and the others won't consume anything, and for example, waiting for their friend to finish to go and eat in anotther place !
Why do you assume that all the dinners will eat something or even consume something at the restaurant, thus increasing the profits of the restaurant
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 14
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2018, 01:49
I have a doubt on option D:

(D) When even one member of group of diner???s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

Option D is a factual statement. Despite this being true, sales of veg. sandwich are not picking. So, D is irrelevant.

Moreover, OG explanation states that the chain's overall profit can be increased by encouraging large groups to eat at the chain.

My counter: Well, the chain is already doing this. The argument states that despite HEAVY MARKETING, sales are not picking.

Even if a large group come to the chain, the one who is a vegetarian or wants low-fat menu option would each veg sandwich and other others would eat the regular hamburger.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 08 Aug 2017
Posts: 251
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Nov 2018, 23:56
Though I marked it correct, I have one question here.
Is weaken a argument different from weaken a conclusion?

See, I have seen in many questions in which we have to weaken or strengthen either the whole argument or a specific assertion, premise, conclusion etc.
How should we approach the question in these cases?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2093
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2018, 19:14
1
JAIN09 wrote:
cost of having it on the menu:does it include only the advertising cost or the advertising and the cost of preparing the sandwich
as per the argument:there was an heavy investment in the advertising of the new sandwich.the cost of having the sandwich on the menu cannot be recovered unless the sale grows to 4 times.
i think it only talks about the advertising expenses,but not the making charges of sandwich.

ENLIGHTEN ME SIR!!

ffsalek wrote:
Maybe , just the friend who want the veg sandwich who will consume it , and the others won't consume anything, and for example, waiting for their friend to finish to go and eat in anotther place !
Why do you assume that all the dinners will eat something or even consume something at the restaurant, thus increasing the profits of the restaurant

jack0997 wrote:
I have a doubt on option D:

(D) When even one member of group of diner???s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

Option D is a factual statement. Despite this being true, sales of veg. sandwich are not picking. So, D is irrelevant.

Moreover, OG explanation states that the chain's overall profit can be increased by encouraging large groups to eat at the chain.

My counter: Well, the chain is already doing this. The argument states that despite HEAVY MARKETING, sales are not picking.

Even if a large group come to the chain, the one who is a vegetarian or wants low-fat menu option would each veg sandwich and other others would eat the regular hamburger.

When we evaluate a potential weakener, we want to know if that choice is relevant to the specific conclusion we're trying to weaken.

In this case, the conclusion is not that sales of the vegetarian sandwich will go up. We are told explicitly in the argument itself that a quadruple increase in sales is unlikely, even after heavy marketing. So the author has already conceded that point.

The conclusion we're asked to weaken is that "the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich." This goes beyond sales of the veg sandwich and asks us to consider what impact dropping the sandwich would have on overall profits. Will dropping the sandwich lead to an increase in overall profits for the chain? The right choice will push us in the direction of saying, "Nah."

So (D) is definitely relevant, because it identifies a specific way that inclusion of the veg sandwich could generate an alternate source of profits: The sales made to omnivorous customers who arrive with vegetarian customers in a single group.

No other answer choice makes this logical connection to the chain's overall profits. That's why we keep (D) and ultimately recognize that it's the best choice available.

As I've mentioned previously, (D) doesn't have to destroy the author's argument to be our best choice. It doesn't have to account for every single detail that we might want to know once a group of customers has entered the restaurant, like volume of sales during that visit or frequency of return visits. And it doesn't have to give us more detailed figures about the costs of the veg sandwich.

(D) simply tells us that a vegetarian menu item can drive other kinds of sales that contribute to profit. Now we know that keeping the veg sandwich can potentially generate sales, while dropping the veg sandwich can potentially lose sales. This is enough to cast doubt on the conclusion.

Furthermore, the chain's marketing expenses might not have any impact on this logic. If true, (D) tells us that the inclusion of a veg menu item (not the amount of marketing spend) is what tends to stop a group from going somewhere else. The chain could cut their marketing budget to $0, and their menu would still meet the condition of including one veg, low-fat option.

Add all of this to the fact that every other answer choice is worse at weakening the conclusion, and we have enough to settle on (D) and continue. I hope this helps clear up how (D) really does address the conclusion that was presented.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 14
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2018, 22:38
GMATNinja wrote:
JAIN09 wrote:
cost of having it on the menu:does it include only the advertising cost or the advertising and the cost of preparing the sandwich
as per the argument:there was an heavy investment in the advertising of the new sandwich.the cost of having the sandwich on the menu cannot be recovered unless the sale grows to 4 times.
i think it only talks about the advertising expenses,but not the making charges of sandwich.

ENLIGHTEN ME SIR!!

ffsalek wrote:
Maybe , just the friend who want the veg sandwich who will consume it , and the others won't consume anything, and for example, waiting for their friend to finish to go and eat in anotther place !
Why do you assume that all the dinners will eat something or even consume something at the restaurant, thus increasing the profits of the restaurant

jack0997 wrote:
I have a doubt on option D:

(D) When even one member of group of diner???s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

Option D is a factual statement. Despite this being true, sales of veg. sandwich are not picking. So, D is irrelevant.

Moreover, OG explanation states that the chain's overall profit can be increased by encouraging large groups to eat at the chain.

My counter: Well, the chain is already doing this. The argument states that despite HEAVY MARKETING, sales are not picking.

Even if a large group come to the chain, the one who is a vegetarian or wants low-fat menu option would each veg sandwich and other others would eat the regular hamburger.

When we evaluate a potential weakener, we want to know if that choice is relevant to the specific conclusion we're trying to weaken.

In this case, the conclusion is not that sales of the vegetarian sandwich will go up. We are told explicitly in the argument itself that a quadruple increase in sales is unlikely, even after heavy marketing. So the author has already conceded that point.

The conclusion we're asked to weaken is that "the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich." This goes beyond sales of the veg sandwich and asks us to consider what impact dropping the sandwich would have on overall profits. Will dropping the sandwich lead to an increase in overall profits for the chain? The right choice will push us in the direction of saying, "Nah."

So (D) is definitely relevant, because it identifies a specific way that inclusion of the veg sandwich could generate an alternate source of profits: The sales made to omnivorous customers who arrive with vegetarian customers in a single group.

No other answer choice makes this logical connection to the chain's overall profits. That's why we keep (D) and ultimately recognize that it's the best choice available.

As I've mentioned previously, (D) doesn't have to destroy the author's argument to be our best choice. It doesn't have to account for every single detail that we might want to know once a group of customers has entered the restaurant, like volume of sales during that visit or frequency of return visits. And it doesn't have to give us more detailed figures about the costs of the veg sandwich.

(D) simply tells us that a vegetarian menu item can drive other kinds of sales that contribute to profit. Now we know that keeping the veg sandwich can potentially generate sales, while dropping the veg sandwich can potentially lose sales. This is enough to cast doubt on the conclusion.

Furthermore, the chain's marketing expenses might not have any impact on this logic. If true, (D) tells us that the inclusion of a veg menu item (not the amount of marketing spend) is what tends to stop a group from going somewhere else. The chain could cut their marketing budget to $0, and their menu would still meet the condition of including one veg, low-fat option.

Add all of this to the fact that every other answer choice is worse at weakening the conclusion, and we have enough to settle on (D) and continue. I hope this helps clear up how (D) really does address the conclusion that was presented.


Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. Kudos!

I have one more doubt w.r.t. the interpretation of Option D.

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

I had interpreted (D) as: Since even if one member of group of diner’s prefers a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants (THIS FOOD CHAIN) that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu option. As per the argument, the food chain has only one vegetarian or low-fat food item (Verg sandwich), the group of diner’s would avoid coming here and would rather prefer a restaurant where there are few varieties of vegetarian or low-fat menu options.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent &nbs [#permalink] 04 Nov 2018, 22:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.