Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 05:07 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 05:07
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
805+ Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 11:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
C implies that

Grocery stores will only carry VERY SUCCESFFUL PRODUCTS.

Inference - If (type 1) and/or (type 2) and/or (type 3) are very successful - grocery stores will be incentivized to carry these types of products
Show more

jabhatta2 here's answer choice (C):
Quote:
C. Most grocery stores have such narrow profit margins that they cannot afford to carry marginally successful products.
Show more
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.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 12:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
hadimadi
How does the existence of a new type or product in some grocers give such an incentive? The mere existence, without any sales or profit numbers, or other benefits? Who knows if this will ever sell?
hadimadi The author's reasoning for grocers' lack of a reason to encourage the introduction of new products was the zero-sum-game in the case of new brands for existing products. If there's a new product (as opposed to merely a new brand of an existing product), then the reasoning provided by the author is no longer relevant, and the grocers may very well have a reason to encourage the introduction of new products (because it's no longer a zero-sum-game).
hadimadi
Now here is why (D) INCLUDES (E):
If grocers can reject or accept any kind of product (any kind includes new types or products AND new brands), then they have a reason to encourage manufacturers to come up with new product types and new brands. IF a product is nice of revenue increase or profit, they accept it. For example, if the pasta mentioned in (E) is nice, they will accept it.
Right, (D) says no-one is going to force grocers to carry products they don't want to. Okay, great. Now that we know this, do we (the grocers) have a reason to encourage the introduction of new products? What is that reason, exactly? Can you articulate it? What has changed? It's still a zero-sum-game, after all, is it not?
Show more

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.
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
 [1]
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 14:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
The reason why (D) 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.
Show more
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:
IanStewart
from the argument, without information about profit margins, we have no reason to think the grocer can gain anything by stocking a new detergent product.
Show more
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.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 14:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
hadimadi
The reason why (D) 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 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:
IanStewart
from the argument, without information about profit margins, we have no reason to think the grocer can gain anything by stocking a new detergent product.
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.
Show more


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
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 15:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
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.
Show more
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.
hadimadi
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?
Show more
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.

hadimadi
I see that (D) isn’t ideal, but I also see that (E) is just as ‘inideal’.
Show more
Let's see if we can add a premise to the argument, that would make (D) a good answer:
Quote:
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.
Show more
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.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 16:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[quote=“avigutman"]
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.[/quote]


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.
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 18 Aug 2022, 16:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
(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.
Show more
Let's look at exactly what (E) says, hadimadi, and I'll boldface the important words:
Quote:
E. Some manufacturers introduce new types of groceries, such as precooked meals that people can prepare quickly instead of going to a restaurant.
Show more
This is explicitly stating that the new product will replace restaurants, not other ready-to-eat meals.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 20 Aug 2022, 02:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
hadimadi
(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.
Let's look at exactly what (E) says, hadimadi, and I'll boldface the important words:
Quote:
E. Some manufacturers introduce new types of groceries, such as precooked meals that people can prepare quickly instead of going to a restaurant.
This is explicitly stating that the new product will replace restaurants, not other ready-to-eat meals.
Show more

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!
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 20 Aug 2022, 09:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
avigutman
hadimadi
(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.
Let's look at exactly what (E) says, hadimadi, and I'll boldface the important words:
Quote:
E. Some manufacturers introduce new types of groceries, such as precooked meals that people can prepare quickly instead of going to a restaurant.
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!
Show more

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?
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 21 Aug 2022, 04:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 21 Aug 2022, 17:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
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.
Show more
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.
User avatar
vv65
User avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
395
 [2]
Given Kudos: 774
Location: India
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Posts: 534
Kudos: 395
 [2]
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 21 Aug 2022, 21:00
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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?
Show more
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
User avatar
mbaaccount1234
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2024
Last visit: 29 Oct 2025
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 104
Location: Brazil
Schools: Booth '26 CBS '26 HBS '26 Sloan '26 Wharton '26 Kellogg '26
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q86 V83 DI78
GPA: 8/10
Schools: Booth '26 CBS '26 HBS '26 Sloan '26 Wharton '26 Kellogg '26
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q86 V83 DI78
Posts: 70
Kudos: 14
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 29 Sep 2024, 12:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 03 Oct 2024, 13:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ahaimenis
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?
Show more
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.
User avatar
boybread5
User avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 19
Location: United States (CA)
GMAT Focus 1: 625 Q86 V80 DI77
GMAT Focus 2: 665 Q81 V89 DI79
GMAT Focus 3: 635 Q83 V78 DI83
GMAT Focus 4: 755 Q88 V90 DI85
GPA: 3.92
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
GMAT Focus 4: 755 Q88 V90 DI85
Posts: 24
Kudos: 19
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 21 Jan 2025, 17:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?

KarishmaB
Bunuel
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?


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
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
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
New grocery products benefit the manufacturer but not the grocer. If 28 Jan 2025, 08:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
boybread5
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?
Show more
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.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
188 posts