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

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.

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.

If revenue from veg sandwich is lower than cost , the only way to bump up the revenue is to increase the sale . When sales increase to at least a level where revenue atleast equals to the cost , then veg sandwich will atleast not cause any loss and the restaurant can just take away the same profit without dropping the veg sandwich.

(D) says , if atleast one member prefers veg in group , may be for the sake of friendship everyone opts for veg , then this options suggests that for on's preference atleast 2 customer will buy a veg sandwich. Well , this certainly boosts sales a bit or atleast increases the chance of it.

Hence D is the answer

It took me lot of time to make sense out of D.
Argument says Dropping of sandwich from menu is more profitable.
What if Keeping it on menu is profitable.
D exactly conveys the same , even if the other group members have sandwich or burger ,Overall sale is increased because of sandwich.

please correct me if I am wrong, or I am assuming too much

Even if there is one vegetarian person in a group of 5, other 4 will eat something else. Hence, the overall sales of the restaurant will increase. Hence, it’s actually the veg burger due to which the group is coming to restaurant and the overall sales of the restaurant is increasing .

Hope this helps.....
Help me with a kudos please.....

Posted from my mobile device

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. - Trying and liking don't guarantee long-term gain. Doesn't weaken the original sentence

(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.
Not relevant to the argument topic(vegetarian sandwich)
(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.
Not relevant to the argument topic(vegetarian 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.
Eliminating the vegetarian sandwich will result in a lost business opportunity for other food options and this opportunity(profit) has not been taken into account.
-Weaken the argument

(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.
Not so relevant to the argument topic(vegetarian sandwich)

To correctly answer this question we have to answer the following question:

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

The argument supports the following conclusion:

the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Now, here's choice (D).

(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.

The implications of choice (D) are that, if the chain drops the vegetarian sandwich, it may lose the business of entire groups of diners that include a member who is vegetarian or prefers low fat food. Thus, even though the passage say that sales of the sandwich itself are not profitable for the chain, (D) indicates that it is quite possible that the chain would NOT be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

So, (D) does just what we need - it weakens the case for the conclusion - and thus (D) is the correct answer to the question.

­Yes, that's exactly right! The benefit of keeping the veggie sandwich is that whole groups of people would choose this restaurant to accommodate one vegetarian in their group. The restaurant can then profit off of the rest of the group buying hamburgers and other items.

I hope that helps!­

Option "E" is also a contender but "attracted few new customers" makes it unlikely to increase the profit of the company.

D wins.

Hi! Karishma,

Consumers reported that they were satisfied, but it doesn't mean that they will go and eat the sandwich again

Hi KarishmaParmar ,

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. ------> Another market research surveys may contradict to this report.Overall surveys may not reflect actual impact.But Answer Choice D weakens the argument the most

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.

Type - Weaken
Boil it down - Since sandwhich's sales is unlikely to quadruple , it's removal from menu will be more profitable
Pre- Thinking - Even if the restaurant has not made a break even with respect to sandwhich , we need to find some alternate reason due to which it's increasing the profitability

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. Incorrect

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. Irrelevant
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 answer - matches our pre-thinking answer
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

Answer D

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.

D for me too.as it indicates from 1 customer the whole group would start eating and slowly sales would grow

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.

D for me too ... The conclusion that dropping it makes the most sense is suffers maximum impact via D

OA is out of scope since you cannot contest the supporting arguments to weaken the argument rather you attack the conclusion to weaken the argument.

Sent from my SM-G925I using GMAT Club Forum mobile app