New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If

Question

New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If a company introduces a new brand of detergent, it might attract more consumers to its brand. The grocery store, however, will not sell any more detergent overall than it would have without the new brand. Thus there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products.

Which of the following, if true, argues against the conclusion above?

Which of the following, if true, argues against the conclusion above?

A. Often manufacturers introduce a new grocery product in order to take business away from a competitor who already produces a similar product.

B. Some manufacturers prefer to put new grocery products in stores as early as possible, rather than spending time and money on controlled market research.

C. Most grocery stores have such narrow profit margins that they cannot afford to carry marginally successful products.

D. Grocers have the option not to take on products that they do not think will sell well, or that they expect will not increase the grocer's profits.

E. Some manufacturers introduce new types of groceries, such as precooked meals that people can prepare quickly instead of going to a restaurant.

CR16818

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2  here's answer choice (C):
 
Can you walk me through your reasoning, step by step: how you get from the original text to your inference, and then from your inference to the grocers' reason to encourage the introduction of new products? I'm having a hard time following.

hadimadi · Answer

avigutman

1. Yes, if there is a new product that does somehow well it would be interesting. (E) only talks about the existence of a new product, nothing about if it will ever sell. Merely a new product is not an incentive for a grocer to encourage manufacturers. It has to be a new product that is purchased or somehow has a  positive effect  on the grocer. Where in (E) is that effect? It isn’t mentioned. It could still be the best answer, since in mentions new products that  might  sell. So let’s look at (D).

2. The reason why this should encourage grocers to push manufacturers for new products: Grocers have 0 cost of encouraging M to develop products. As a grocer, my rationale is to push M to do new products. If they develop completely new products that will be sold, good, I will accept. If not, I won’t. 
It could be, for example, that M comes up with the same product as mentioned in (E), and given that it actually sells, the grocer would take it.
So in total, given that I can accept and decline products, I have all the incentives to push M to develop (new) products and see what they come up with.

I find 2. stronger than 1.

avigutman · Answer

I understand your point about (D) including (E). Here's why it doesn't,  hadimadi : the argument's reasoning describes a zero-sum-game within each product category, and presents that as the reason for its conclusion. The argument fails to mention anything about the possibility of new product categories. Therefore, until we get to answer choice (E), we don't know, nor do we have any reason to think, that there may be new product categories that the grocers never imagined possible. When we read (D) we're still in the dark about that - (D) doesn't mention the possibility of new product categories. Consider that between 1200AD and 1500AD we had 300 years with essentially zero new product categories.

As  IanStewart  said before I joined in the conversation: 
 Ian confines his explanation to new brands within an existing product category because that's what the argument's reasoning did. We need an answer choice that  explicitly suggests there could be such a thing  as an entirely new, never before conceived of, product category. (E) does that but (D) doesn't.

hadimadi · Answer

Hello Avi,

thanks for the discussion.

The argument is looking for something that incentives G to encourage M to develop products. Such a thing could be new products as they might sell well. Therefore, I don't agree with the point where you say that the answer must be something with a new product. 
An answer could also be that a new innovation has made it possible for detergents to be produced by M at much lower cost, and M carries that to G. So new product types isn’t the only possible answer here.
Just because the question stem tells us about a zero sum game for existing brand products, it doesn’t mean necessarily that the answer has to be about a new product type.
In each of the answers you have given me in your previous post, you posit that we require a new product type.

Yes, (E) mentions that new product types exist. But again, could you lay out to me how the existence of a new product type incentives G to encourage M to develop new products?

I see that (E) mentions the existence something that the argument doesn’t consider, but how does that trigger the encouraging part?

I see that (D) isn’t ideal, but I also see that (E) is just as ‘inideal’.

Merci Avi

avigutman · Answer

You're exactly right, that was a great analysis! For the record, my position that we require a new product type was in the context of the available answer choices. 
 
We're looking for an answer that attacks the claim   there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products  . Answer choice (E) gives an out from the zero-sum-game problem, thereby suggesting that there   may be reason   after all.

Let's see if we can add a premise to the argument, that would make (D) a good answer:
 
Now answer choice (D) offers new information that directly engages with the argument. But without that extra premise, only answer choice (E) offers new information that directly engages with the argument,  hadimadi .

hadimadi · Answer

Here I still have issues. You say that we are looking for an answer that attacks the claim that there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products. 
(E) doesn’t give us necessarily an out from the zero sum game: People could stop buying other ready-to-eat meals from the grocer in a way that equalizes the positive effect on sales of the new product. Until we don’t know that, (E) remains just as good as (D) for me.

avigutman · Answer

Let's look at exactly what (E) says,  hadimadi , and I'll boldface the important words: 
This is explicitly stating that the new product will replace restaurants, not other ready-to-eat meals.

hadimadi · Answer

Hello Avi,

thanks for the explanation. We still don’t know if people will buy that product.

In any case, the discussion cleared things up.

Thanks!

avigutman · Answer

Do you see that in order to  argue against the conclusion   that there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products ], we don't need to know whether people will buy that product,  hadimadi ?

hadimadi · Answer

Hi Avi,

that is exactly the deal breaker for me. I don’t see why else grocers would have a reason to encourage M, if there is not any kind of possible positive effect indicated. It doesn’t have to be necessarily that the product will be purchased, any possible positive effect is fine.

But I don’t see any indication for such effect. I find the answer (E) should say something like:

Some grocers introduced a new kind of meal that replaces restaurant meals and that at least some customer segments have shown interest in.

Big thanks for being so involved and taking so much time to dig deep on this one.

Regards

avigutman · Answer

That's exactly it,  hadimadi : There is a   possible   positive effect.
The mere fact that we discovered a   potential   new revenue stream for the grocers (breaking the zero-sum-game), is all that is needed to attack the claim there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products. We (the grocers) do now have a reason, thanks to this new information. Since there's a potential, possible benefit (that the author hadn't thought of when writing her argument), we have reason to encourage the introduction of new products.

vv65 · Answer

The text tells us that a new brand of detergent will not increase the grocer's detergent sales.
 
From this, the argument jumps to the conclusions that
- new grocery products do not benefit the grocer 
- there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new product

This is what we are looking for in the answer: anything that shows that grocers COULD benefit. The benefit could be anything - increased sales, increased profit margins, easier logistics, ...

Stay laser focused on this one point: Which answer shows that grocers could benefit from new products?  Only one answer choice suggests a possible benefit for grocers.

This is a great CR question.

Posted from my mobile device

mbaaccount1234 · Answer

Hi all, 
Regarding D, why can’t I think that the fact that grocers have the choice to not sell the product but end up selling has an underlying reason for it? Therefore, weakening the conclusion that they shouldn’t sell?

GMATNinja · Answer

I'm not sure where you're getting the "end up selling" part from. Choice (D) simply tells us that the grocers are not  forced  to sell the new products. It does not say that the grocers actually do end up selling those products.

Also, keep in mind that the conclusion is not "grocers  should not  sell new products" or "grocers  will not  sell new products". This is the conclusion: "there is  little reason  for grocers to  encourage  the introduction of new products."

In other words, there's no incentive for grocers to put the new products on their shelves. Why not? Because, for example, a customer choosing to buy Brand X detergent instead of Brand Y detergent doesn't change the  total amount  of detergent purchased by that customer. If the customer is going to buy 100 gallons of detergent per year from the grocer regardless of the brand, then (according to the passage), the grocer doesn't care what brand(s) of detergent the customer buys.

For more one why (E) is correct, check out this post:  https://gmatclub.com/forum/new-grocery-products-benefit-the-manufacturer-but-not-the-grocer-if-324659.html#p2636636 .

boybread5 · Answer

I got it right with E on similar logic, but here's what I don't love. First sentence says a statement of fact / premise: "New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer." E discusses a new grocery product (let's say it's a Blue Apron knock-off). Whether just another brand replacement or a new type of grocery, it's still a new product. I would think that E is in violation of that first sentence.

What am I missing here?

What am I missing here?

GMATNinja · Answer

The first sentence isn't a simple statement of fact. Instead, it's what the author believes to be true based on the  hypothetical  situation described in the passage -- specifically, the introduction of a new brand of detergent.

The logical flow goes something like this:

"If a company introduces a new brand of detergent, it might attract more consumers to its brand." The new brand has a benefit (or at least a potential benefit) for the manufacturer.
 
 "The grocery store, however, will not sell any more detergent overall than it would have without the new brand." The new brand does not benefit the grocery store at all (according to the  author ).
 
 Based on that example, "New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer."
 
 "Thus there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products."

The final bullet represents the author's main conclusion. That conclusion is based on the author's analysis of the hypothetical example. The first sentence is simply part of that analysis, not some immutable fact that we have to take for granted.

For example, a statement of fact or premise would look more like this: "Detergent sales at Wal-Rite Grocery Store doubled from last year to this year." That's something we'd have to take for granted. But the first sentence in this argument is more of an intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.

So you're right: (E) does go against the first sentence, and that's why it's the best answer.

Asan92 · Answer

KarishmaB , at the risk of reviving an old thread: Upon revisiting this question, I realized that the first sentence (premise) might conflict with Option E. How do we view this conflict?

My understanding is that the premise is a fact, and it should not conflict with any option. In this case, Option E suggests that the grocers might actually benefit from new products, in contrary to the premise.

Thank you so much!

guddo · Answer

I don''t think there is no problem.

That first sentence is not an established “fact,” it is part of the author’s claim that is being used to support the conclusion. An answer choice is allowed to undercut it.

Also, (E) can be read as pointing out a limitation in the author’s premise: the argument’s example is a new brand within a fixed demand category (detergent), but some “new products” are new types that create additional demand (for example, precooked meals replacing restaurant visits). In those cases, the grocer can sell more overall, so the broad conclusion “little reason for grocers to encourage new products” does not follow.

KarishmaB · Answer

Fair point. Actually that first sentence is the author's claim (intermediate conclusion), not a premise. I shouldn't be putting it under premises. Look at the logical flow of the argument:

Premise:
 If a company introduces a new brand of detergent, it might attract more consumers to its brand. 
The grocery store, however, will not sell any more detergent overall than it would have without the new brand.

IC: So new grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. (supported by the example above and supports the MC)

MC: Thus there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products.

Option (E) attacks the IC - indicates benefit for the grocery store too.

New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards