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 a group of diners 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. Vegetarian Sandwich Step 1: Identify the Question The word weakens in the question stem indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question. Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument Add lo-fat veg sand Low sales à need 4X to cover costs Drop veg sand à increase profit Step 3: Pause and State the Goal On Weaken questions, the goal is to find a piece of information that would make the conclusion less likely to be valid. In this case, the author claims that it would be more profitable for the company to drop the vegetarian sandwich. What factors that are not discussed in the argument might influence profitability? Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right (A) The problem with the vegetarian sandwich is that few customers buy it, resulting in low sales. The opinions of customers who have tried the sandwich do not address the low sales. (B) Whether consumers also visit competitors’ restaurants does not directly relate to whether the plan in the argument (dropping the vegetarian sandwich) will improve profitability. (C) Trends in hamburger sales do not directly influence the plan in the argument to drop the vegetarian sandwich. (D) CORRECT . This answer suggests that the vegetarian sandwich may influence the company’s profit beyond the sales of the sandwich itself. The availability of the vegetarian sandwich may attract groups of customers (with one vegetarian) who buy hamburgers, resulting in additional revenues. If the chain dropped the sandwich, on the other hand, then a group with one vegetarian would likely (according to this choice) not come to this chain at all. (E) This answer is not directly relevant because it is about another product, not the vegetarian sandwich. If anything, this answer strengthens the argument because it suggests that new products do not increase sales.

Last visit was: 10 May 2026, 17:41

It is currently 10 May 2026, 17:41

Toolkit

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3

VISHWAS1990

Joined: 24 May 2016

Last visit: 22 Jan 2018

Posts: 3

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 3

Kudos: 1

[1]

22 Dec 2017, 22:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

Mrinal/Lostin,

About option D:
You are assuming that the business lost due to vegeterian group is higher than the maintenance cost of sandwich.To assume this you should know the maintenance cost of sandwich and the money lost due to vegeterian group.

I can also say that the cost of maintenance for sandwich is much higher than the business lost due to vegeterian group.So if i assume this, option D does not weaken the argument.

s8kadian

Joined: 05 Nov 2015

Last visit: 03 Jun 2020

Posts: 43

Own Kudos:

108

Given Kudos: 60

Location: India

Posts: 43

Kudos: 108

23 Dec 2017, 00:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

[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

KillerGMAT

Joined: 30 Dec 2017

Last visit: 02 Apr 2018

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 11

Kudos: 2

25 Jan 2018, 21:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

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?

abhigulia3006

Joined: 30 Jan 2018

Last visit: 22 Apr 2019

Posts: 12

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 153

Location: India

Schools: Duke '21 Kellogg '21 Booth '21 CBS '21 Ross '21 ISB '20 Goizueta '21 Rotman '21

GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V29 Verified score

GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V41 Verified score

GPA: 3.17

Schools: Duke '21 Kellogg '21 Booth '21 CBS '21 Ross '21 ISB '20 Goizueta '21 Rotman '21

GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V41 Verified score

Posts: 12

Kudos: 12

16 Mar 2018, 23:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

AkshdeepS

Joined: 13 Apr 2013

Last visit: 09 May 2026

Posts: 1,423

Own Kudos:

1,941

Given Kudos: 1,002

Status:It's near - I can see.

Location: India

Concentration: International Business, Operations

GPA: 3.01

WE:Engineering (Real Estate)

Products:

Posts: 1,423

Kudos: 1,941

24 Mar 2018, 10:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

AbdurRakib

(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

JAIN09

Joined: 18 Feb 2017

Last visit: 20 Jan 2019

Posts: 39

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 509

Location: India

Schools: ISB '20 IIMA PGPX"20 IIMC PGPEX"20

GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V30 Verified score

GPA: 3.35

Schools: ISB '20 IIMA PGPX"20 IIMC PGPEX"20

GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V30 Verified score

Posts: 39

Kudos: 8

09 Apr 2018, 06:02

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja

Quote:

abhigulia3006

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

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!!

Nightmare007

Joined: 26 Aug 2016

Last visit: 05 Aug 2020

Posts: 426

Own Kudos:

449

Given Kudos: 204

Location: India

Concentration: Operations, International Business

Schools: ISB '20 (M) Simon '21 (WL)

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33 Verified score

GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33 Verified score

GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38 Verified score

GPA: 4

WE:Information Technology (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: ISB '20 (M) Simon '21 (WL)

GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38 Verified score

Posts: 426

Kudos: 449

20 Apr 2018, 19:58

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

ffsalek

Joined: 28 Jul 2018

Last visit: 30 May 2019

Posts: 7

Given Kudos: 17

Location: Morocco

Schools: HBS '22

GMAT 1: 580 Q47 V17 Verified score

Products:

Schools: HBS '22

GMAT 1: 580 Q47 V17 Verified score

Posts: 7

Kudos: 0

26 Aug 2018, 09:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

jack0997

Joined: 11 Nov 2013

Last visit: 29 Oct 2022

Posts: 32

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 25

Posts: 32

Kudos: 85

01 Nov 2018, 02:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

gvij2017

Joined: 09 Aug 2017

Last visit: 18 Jun 2024

Posts: 663

Own Kudos:

508

Given Kudos: 778

Posts: 663

Kudos: 508

03 Nov 2018, 00:56

Kudos

Bookmarks

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?

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 09 May 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,880

[3]

Given Kudos: 2,133

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,880

[3]

04 Nov 2018, 20:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

JAIN09

ffsalek

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

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.

jack0997

Joined: 11 Nov 2013

Last visit: 29 Oct 2022

Posts: 32

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 25

Posts: 32

Kudos: 85

04 Nov 2018, 23:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja

JAIN09

ffsalek

jack0997

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.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 09 May 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,880

[4]

Given Kudos: 2,133

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,880

[4]

24 Nov 2018, 10:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

jack0997

GMATNinja

Be careful when you re-phrase or re-interpret what's written. "The group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options" is NOT the same as "The group prefers restaurants where there are a few varieties of veg or low-fat items." And we have no evidence for the latter statement.

"Lack" can mean "have none of" or "don't have enough of." So the furthest you could push choice (D) is to: "The group tends to avoid restaurants that don't have enough vegetarian or low-fat menu options." Even then, (D) still casts doubt on the decision to drop from 1 veg option (which could be enough) to 0 veg options (which definitely is not enough). Furthermore, we still know that (D) is better than every other answer choice. This is all enough to keep (D) and move on.

BijayKru

Joined: 24 Sep 2018

Last visit: 04 Dec 2025

Posts: 60

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 27

Location: India

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing

GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V37 Verified score

Posts: 60

Kudos: 25

30 May 2019, 02:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

jaisonsunny77

Joined: 05 Jan 2019

Last visit: 25 Aug 2021

Posts: 457

Own Kudos:

395

Given Kudos: 28

Posts: 457

Kudos: 395

05 Jun 2020, 17:51

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.~~ - this represents the preference of a small minority of the restaurant chain's customers. A small minority will not be enough to quadruple the sales.

~~(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.~~ - does not weaken the argument

~~(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.~~ - this actually strengthens the argument, not weaken it.

(D) When even one member of a group of diners 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 - here, we know that people in good numbers have a preference for restaurants that include vegetarian/low-fat food if just one of the group members have a preference for it. (D) represents the most probable chance to attract many customers and hence gain better profits. This would weaken the argument. Hence, (D) is the right answer choice here.

(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. - this would actually agree with the conclusion, not weaken it.

Patilsv28

Joined: 14 Jun 2019

Last visit: 06 Aug 2021

Posts: 26

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 42

Location: India

Schools: (S)

GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31 Verified score

Schools: (S)

GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31 Verified score

Posts: 26

Kudos: 3

19 Jul 2020, 06:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaParmar

AbdurRakib

Hi , Can someone help with why A is not a contender. If people are satisfied , they will keep buying it. And the firm will be at least as profitable as it is now or even more with word of mouth publicity.

Hi Karishma,

Let's assume that the restaurant chain needs to sale 1000 sandwiches to recover the cost of the newly introduced sandwich.

Most word is very generic in option A. What if only 100 people have tried the sandwiches and 90 of them are satisfied? Still a long way to achieve a sale of 1000 sandwiches. Based on this we cannot certainly guarantee that restaurant can be profitable by selling new sandwiches.

Please give kudos if you find this helpful.

mba757

Current Student

Joined: 15 Jun 2020

Last visit: 04 Aug 2022

Posts: 295

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 245

Location: United States

Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)

GPA: 3.3

Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)

Posts: 295

Kudos: 98

20 Jul 2020, 04:59

Kudos

Bookmarks

B; P; P; P/C Conclusion: the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich (since such an increase is unlikely) so more profitable to drop?? What if it costs a ridiculous amount to drop something from the menu? What if dropping outweighs the costs of keeping? What if people need the option there for the group to go?

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.
“Since such an increase [in the “sandwich’s sales”] is unlikely.” Therefore, it’s irrelevant to point out only a segment of the market has tried and liked.

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.
If there’s no strong preference among the competitors, it leaves the information unbiased. So if anything, it could support the argument in a way, leveling out the argument’s other elements/factors and making the current point (of heavy marketing $$ and lower number of sales) more pronounced and strengthening the argument.

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.
Are we worried about the hamburger sales? We’re worried about the sandwich sales. If anything, this could strengthen. If there’s more offerings else where, maybe this sandwich would do poorly too.

D. When even one member of a group of diners 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
Interesting. Even if one person is a vegetarian and a restaurant lacks vegetarian stuff, the WHOLE group doesn’t go (generally speaking). So you would not only lose vegetarian sales but also lose sales overall. This would hit profits overall for the company since all sales would be impacted. So removing a money losing item would make the restaurant lose even more potential sales. This seems to hit all aspects of the conclusion and definitely calls into question the soundness of the decision to remove the item.

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.
Strengther if anything. This is just a supporting/related point that shows that it would probs not work to do the vegetarian (much lower in fat) sandwich.

MHIKER

Joined: 14 Jul 2010

Last visit: 24 May 2021

Posts: 938

Own Kudos:

5,832

Given Kudos: 690

Status:No dream is too large, no dreamer is too small

Concentration: Accounting

Posts: 938

Kudos: 5,832

08 Dec 2020, 05:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

AbdurRakib

GMAT® Official Guide 2017

Practice Question
Question No.: CR 618
Page: 531

D suggests that if the restaurant drops the sandwich it may lose some dinners, who come in group with vegetarian and low-fat choice option. So it will wise to drop the item.

The answer is D.

CEdward

Joined: 11 Aug 2020

Last visit: 14 Apr 2022

Posts: 1,161

Own Kudos:

290

Given Kudos: 332

Posts: 1,161

Kudos: 290

12 Jan 2021, 02:19

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

P: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants added a vegetarian sandwich with much lower fat than other offerings.
P: The new sandwich accounts for a small proportion of sales despite heavy marketing
P: Sales of the sandwich would have to quadruple for break-even
C: The increase in sales is unlikely, so the chain should drop the sandwich to be more profitable

OK so what’s happening here is there is a paradox. There is heavy marketing, yet the sandwich accounts for low sales. So the chain thinks that they would be more PROFITABLE if they were to drop the sandwich.

A weakener has to attack that idea somehow. Let’s find out guys.

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.

All this tells us is that among the people (a very small proportion) who have tried it are satisfied. Is it still the case that the chain could be more profitable by dropping the sandwich even though a ‘small’ proportion are satisfied? Absolutely.

(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.

Plausible. But, this doesn’t weaken.

(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.

Hamburger sales have nothing to do with the profitability of vegetarian sandwiches.

(D) When even one member of a group of diners 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. Here’s an alternative factor that the author did not consider. Groups with vegetarians might end up attracting more customers to the chain…so maybe they won’t be less profitable by keeping it on the menu after all.

(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.

The passage doesn’t spend time discussing the expected/projected success of a new menu addition, which this choice seems to emphasize. Either way, the focus is on the sale of the vegetarian burger, not low fat hamburger.