Marketing chief: The aggressive sales campaign of Product J

Hi RK84!

Carolyn from Magoosh here -- I can step in for Mike

First, we need to be clear about the parts of the argument. As you said, the conclusion is:

Since J is successful, S will be successful

But a conclusion is very different from a premise. A premise is a piece of information which supports the conclusion. Here, the premises are:

Sales of J increased over the course of the marketing campaign.

That's it. That's the fact that is used to support the conclusion. Now, a claim is not necessarily a fact, but something that is also used to support the conclusion. Here, the claim is:

The aggressive sales campaign of Product J has made it the most popular product in the sector.

Since this is not a piece of factual information, just an interpretation, it is a claim, not a premise (a premise must be true in the context of the argument). This is the claim that the Consultant is challenging.

As for your second question, "stating a claim" can certainly be interpreted as "questioning an argument". For example, if you say "This ice cream is chocolate" and in response, I say "this ice cream is vanilla", then I am questioning your claim. With GMAT dialogue questions like these, we should always interpret the second "speaker" as responding to the first, and questioning the first argument.

Hope that helps!
-Carolyn

Isn't d a better answer choice than a. It essentially is saying the same thing but it states the added point of the 'evidence' mentioned.

Hi Mike,
I have a lot of respect for your explanations on the questions posted on this forum. Thanks for being here to help the aspirants out.
Regarding the solution of this question:
My reasoning for option D- the conclusion of the argument made by the mktg chief is: since J is successful, S will be successful. Now the first part about J might be a claim but in the context of the argument it is working as a premise. Is a premise always factual or some claims can also be taken as premise? Please help.

Besides, in option A, the consultant is not questioning, right? He is just stating a claim. Can it be taken as questioning ?





Isn't d a better answer choice than a. It essentially is saying the same thing but it states the added point of the 'evidence' mentioned.[/quote]
Dear Avinashs87,
I'm happy to respond.

In the question, part of the marketing chief's argument is the idea that (sales campaign) caused (popularity of Product J). In other words, in his mind, the cause was the sales campaign and the effect was the popularity of Product J. The consultant switches around the order of cause and effect, saying that the popularity of Product J was the cause and the effectiveness of the sale campaign was the effect. Thus, he questioned the posited relation of cause and effect. That's choice (A), the OA.

Choice (D) is a good distractor, but think about it. What exactly is the premise? A premise is something factual, something presented as indisputable. What the consultant says appears to be a premise, for example. Here's what's very tricky. If the marketing chief said what he said and no one responded, we would be in the position of having to accept his first sentence as a premise, as factual. BUT because the consultant called that very statement into question, we cannot consider it a premise.

Calling a premise into question would be question factual information. For example, if person #1 said, last year our company sold over 10000 new vehicles, and then person #2 said, more than half of those sales were made the year before and, for inventory purposes, carried over to last year's balance sheets----that would be an example of calling a premise into question. It's basically saying: what you said about the facts is not correct, because those are not the facts.

Does this distinction make sense?
Mike[/quote]

Official Explanation
The marketing chief believes the aggressive sales campaign caused Product J's popularity, and wants to cause the same kind of popularity for Product S. The consultant points out the popularity of Product J came first and, in some sense, caused the sales campaign. Thus, the consultant is suggesting that what is cause and what is effect is different than what the marketing chief suggested. That's why (A) is the credited answer.

It's not clear that what the consultant says is a measured data (i.e. evidence) or just a perspective or opinion. Therefore, it's not clear whether we can call it evidence. Because this point is in doubt, we have to reject both choices (B) and (D).

The consultant does not agree with the marketing chief's premises, so she is not suggesting that these same premises lead to anything else. That's why choice (C) is incorrect.

The consultant definitely weakens the marketing chief's argument, so choice (E) cannot possibly be correct.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.