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

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.

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’.

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. Further, any new grocery products may offer lower profit margins than the existing grocery products. Thus 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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

Premises:
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer.
The grocery store will not sell any more detergent overall than it would have without a new brand.

Conclusion: There is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products.

We need to weaken it. We need to provide a reason why grocers may introduce new products.

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

Irrelevant why manufacturers introduce new products. Anyway, it helps our case that the grocer will get nothing extra out of it.

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.

Irrelevant what manufacturers want.

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

We don't know how the profit margins are for old and new 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.

What we are discussing is whether the grocers have a reason to take on new products, whether they would like to take on new products or not. This just tells us that they can pick their own products as per their choice. What we want to know is whether new products will be their choice.

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

Interesting. Our conclusion depends on the fact that one brand just replaces another brand and hence there is no value add for the grocer. This option tells us that some new products are new type of products (not just new brands). This could increase the overall sales and provide a reason for the grocer to introduce new products.­

Answer (E)

Discussion on Weaken Questions: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k

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?