Marketing executive for Magu Corporation: Whenever Magu opens a manufa

While we can tell that the writer believed (B) to be the best answer, and while we can tell why the writer felt that (B) is correct, there is a subtle logical flaw in the construction of this question.

First, here's why (B) is basically correct. The MAIN conclusion of the marketing executive is not that making donations will result in increased sales, but rather that the company SHOULD make donations. We can weaken that conclusion by showing that, even though making donations will positively affect the company's image, doing so will result in a reduction in advertising, which is an even stronger driver of sales than donating is. That information weakens the case for the conclusion that the company SHOULD make donations.

However, there is a flaw in the way the question is written, in that the passage says that making donations will result in "increased sales."

Why does this statement constitute a flaw? Because it locks in the idea that sales will be higher with the donations that without them, while (B) indicates that. actually, making donations will effectively result in a reduction, rather than an increase, in sales.

So, in a way, choice (B) is in conflict with a premise of the argument.

If choice (B) had said, "Increased sales will lead to riots in the streets and destruction of company property," then (B) would have constituted information calling into question the conclusion that the company SHOULD make donations, etc.

In order for this question to be fully logical, the last sentence of the passage has to be adjusted to a form such that the passage says that donations will have an effect but does not say something that conflicts with choice (B). Here's a version that works in that way:

Marketing executive for Magu Corporation: Whenever Magu opens a manufacturing facility in a new city, the company should sponsor, or make donations to, a number of nonprofit organizations in that city. Doing so would improve Magu's image in the community, and the more positively Magu is perceived by a community the more likely it is that people within that community will purchase the company's products.

Given that passage, we can use (B) to call the conclusion into question, by demonstrating that, even if everything said in the passage is true, it is not clear that the company should make donations, etc., because, while doing so may have a positive influence of the company's image in a community, doing so will indirectly result in a reduction in sales.

All that said, this question is totally gettable, even with the flaw, because the conclusion is not that sales will be increased, the support for which is not weakened by (B), but, rather, that the company should make donations, which IS weakened by (B). By correctly identifying the conclusion and seeing the flaw for what it is, a subtle logical issue that the question writing team at GMAC let slip through, one can answer this question correctly.