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

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?

Premise: A manufacturer attracts more consumers towards its brand when it launches a new brand of detergent. A grocery store in any case will not sell more detergents either when it has the new detergent available or it has not. So, new grocery product benefits manufacturer than grocer.
Conclusion: Grocers have little reasons to take new products in their stores.

We need to find something that possibly invalidates that grocers apprehensions.

A. Often manufacturers introduce a new grocery product in order to take business away from a competitor who already produces a similar product. - WRONG. A generic true nothing more, the option does nothing to argument.

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. - WRONG. It again like A does not relate anything to argument. Irrelevant .

C. Most grocery stores have such narrow profit margins that they cannot afford to carry marginally successful products. - WRONG. Strengthener as it elaborates reasons for grocers' little efforts to introduce 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. - CORRECT. Well this option gives another perspective to the argument that grocers have the power to not take the new products in their stores. Thus, they can keep the products they want to keep their profits maintained. This way grocers keep manufacturers in check at the least.

E. Some manufacturers introduce new types of groceries, such as precooked meals that people can prepare quickly instead of going to a restaurant. - WRONG. 'Some' stands for what is not is not known. Also, whether grocers keep their products in their stores is not known. The option is little ambiguous on that part.

And looks like I made a mistake since E is correct.

If ever I have to opt E as correct answer, I can only see one positive about it is that the new product(precooked meals) introduced may(as per the premise of the passage) attract more consumers to the grocery stores. And new consumers means more sales, probably but another 1 or 2 assumptions(which is wrong to do) have to be made to make E as correct.

Still the line of thought is not clear that how E weakens firmly or at least gives a slightest of reasons to doubt conclusion of the argument.
MentorTutoring
I seek your help..!!

Thank you, lnm87, for tagging me. First off, I would like to know the source of the question. The only tag above, CR16818, leads me nowhere. Is it an official question, with a PQID? Bunuel, do you have any insights? Second, I have to say that although the logic behind (D) resonates with me more in a real-world scenario, as products would most certainly encompass new products, and what the grocer anticipates will sell well sounds an awful lot like a financial incentive to me, the GMAT™ is typically narrow-focused when it comes to justifying the correct answer, and (E) does specify new types of groceries, further providing a possible reason for grocers to stock them: a new product such as the one mentioned could draw consumers who enjoy restaurant food into the grocery store to buy the take-home product instead. So in short, I like (D) better, but (E) is a more typical GMAT™-style answer, some notwithstanding.

- Andrew

Hello, GMATCoachBen. Thank you for the kind words about my earlier post. I felt compelled to write because I appreciate the work that you put in on that other thread to provide the community with useful information. Between that effort and your informing everyone about the source of this question, I wanted to express my gratitude personally. Kudos from me.

Keep up the fine work.

- Andrew

This one is tough, I interpreted answer choice A) as If grocers do not introduce the new product they might end up losing sales (given that the new product from the manufacture aims to take sales from a competitor- current one), so there is actually a reason to introduce new products for grocers.

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

On the other side E), remarks that there are some "new" types of groceries but nothing is said about that usually those products are "popular" among customers.

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

Any thoughts on this one?

GMATNinja
GMATCoachBen
MartyTargetTestPrep

In this question, we're trying to find the answer choice that argues against the conclusion that:

"there is little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products."

The argument given for this conclusion is:

1) New grocery products benefit the manufacturer because it might attract more customers to its brand at the expense of their competitors
2) The grocer does not benefit from the introduction of these products
3) This is because the grocer's customers are simply switching from one brand to another and they will not be buying any more of that product type

Let's take a look at (A) and (E) to see how they might argue against this conclusion.

(A) tells us:
The competitor here is not another grocer -- we're told the competitor "already produces a similar product", so the competitor is another manufacturer.

When (A) is read like this, it does not argue against the conclusion above. (A) is more of a rephrasing of the second sentence of the passage telling us that a company might attract more consumers to its brand if it releases a new brand of detergent.

Since the grocer will not benefit from their customers switching from one brand to another, (A) does not give the grocer a reason to encourage the introduction of new products.

There isn't anything in (A) that argues against the conclusion -- (A) is not the answer to this question.

(E) says:
You're right that there's nothing said about these products being popular with customers. However, we're told these new types of groceries mean people can prepare meals quickly "instead of going to a restaurant". The implication here is that people will be attracted to the grocery, rather than going to a restaurant, for this product. (Mmm... restaurants. )

If this were the case, the grocer would attract customers that would normally shop elsewhere. This means the grocer would increase their overall sales by stocking this new product. This gives the grocer a reason to encourage the introduction of this new product, arguing against the conclusion.

This is why (E) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATCoachBen

As per option C, if grocers have little profit margins, wouldn't that give a strong reason to the grocers to encourage the introduction of new and potentially more successful products? Is option C not correct because "new" products are not necessarily equivalent to "successful" products?

Hi Namangupta1997, your doubt about C is correct: "new" is NOT equivalent to "successful". In general, we don't want to add too many of our own assumptions. Note that your first sentence above used the qualifier word "potentially" more successful, because we really have no idea whether new or old products are more successful. We could easily imagine the opposite reasoning that older products are more proven and profitable.

Another thing that's helpful to notice is that the conclusion wording is broader than the example given as a premise. To weaken the conclusion, we only need evidence that "new products" can sometimes be beneficial for grocers. The example in the passage is much more narrow: "If a company introduces a new brand of detergent...the grocery store will not sell any more detergent overall". Choice E addresses this gap, with a counter-example of a new product type that would benefit the grocer. The logic here is that a new product type could increase overall sales and profits, whereas the example in the passage says that a new brand of an existing product will cannibalize existing sales.

Hi RonTargetTestPrep AnishPassi IanStewart DmitryFarber avigutman - (C) and (D) both open the door to be weakeners IMO

Remember - to weaken the conclusion, we only need evidence that "new products" can sometimes be beneficial for grocers.

I thought (C) and (D) both opened the door for weakening the argument because both answers tells us that profit incentive (not higher sales) could be a reason for grocery stores to encourage the introduction of new products.

Now i agree that we cant assume "new products" will always be profitable/unit but we can certainly assume "new products" CAN BE MORE profitable/unit.

Don't both answers give the impression that increased profit gives grocers an incentive to introduce "new products".

I don't think I follow what you're saying here. Before we even read the answer choices, we can reasonably assume the the grocer cares about profit, not about sales. How would it benefit the grocer to increase sales if that didn't lead to higher profits?

Answer C doesn't address the argument: if the store is going to sell $1000 of detergent each day, no matter how many brands it has on the shelf, why should the grocer stock several brands, or new brands? Answer C tells us that the grocer won't continue to stock an unsuccessful brand of detergent, but the grocer will, from the reasoning in the argument, still sell $1000 of detergent each day, so the fact in C has no bearing on the grocer's profits.

You are correct that an answer choice that told us "new products yield higher profits than established products" (for whatever reason) would be a great answer here. That's actually the answer I was expecting to find. But there is no such answer, so we instead need an answer that suggests the grocer will make profits, by introducing new products, that she wouldn't have made otherwise, which is what E tells us -- the grocer can take business away from restaurants. So these products are not like new brands of detergent, which will just take sales away from existing brands of detergent. They are a new source of profit.

IanStewart, GMATCoachBen
AndrewN
KarishmaB

Hello,

I still prefer (D):

We have to find a reason that would encourage grocery stores to encourage manufacturers to produce new products.

(D) tells us that manufacturers can decline or accept new products. As a grocery store, I would encourage manufacturers all I could to create new products. Once they have finished the new product, I would check the profit margins. If there is a benefit, I will take them. If not, I won’t, as I have the choice to decline.

And just to clarify the meaning of encourage: Encouraging doesn’t have to be a direct effort by a grocer knocking on the manufacturers door and promising to buy any new product they manufacture. Encourage means giving manufacturers a reason to invest into new product development. That can be done directly or indirectly.
An interest into new products thus is such an encouragement already.



(E) tells us that there is a completely new product that aims to partly replace restaurant meals. We don’t have any information provided on the success of this new product. How does this give us incentive to encourage new products developed by the manufacturer? If (E) said that this product is also selling well, then we could make a case. However, as it stands, I don’t see the incentive.

Please help

It's important to engage with the actual argument that produces the conclusion. The argument explains that the grocer will sell a fixed amount of detergent. Let's say she sells $1000 of detergent per week. So if the grocer introduces a new brand of detergent, that brand might be amazingly profitable on its own -- perhaps it sells $900 per week -- but then the sales of the previous brands of detergent would drop to $100 per week. The grocer's revenue doesn't change, according to the argument. It is true that if some new products had higher profit margins than existing products, the grocer would have a good reason to consider new products. But there is no information in D or elsewhere that tells us new products can have better profit margins than old products.

So 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. But if the grocer can stock a product she never had in-store before, she can create an entirely new revenue stream. Then the logic of the argument does not apply to the new product, which is why E is a good answer here.

Hello Mr Stewart,

I agree with most of what you say: Nowhere that tells us new products CAN have better profit margins than existing ones.

By the same token, (E) doesn’t indicate that any customer would ever buy this product, thus if it would have any positive effect on revenue and profit.

Also, if (D) happens, it might be that new products like in (E) are developed. So (D) could include (E) ...

Therefore (D) is better

I thought (C) and (D) both opened the door for weakening the argument because both answers tells us that profit incentive (not higher sales) could be a reason for grocery stores to encourage the introduction of new products.

Now i agree that we cant assume "new products" will always be profitable/unit but we can certainly assume "new products" CAN BE MORE profitable/unit.

Don't both answers give the impression that increased profit gives grocers an incentive to introduce "new products".

jabhatta2 You're going to have to walk me through how (C) and (D) give the impression that increased profit gives grocers an incentive to introduce "new products". I don't see it.

Hi hadimadi. I think you're conflating "new product" and "new brand" (jabhatta2, you were probably doing this too). The argument made the same mistake, and (E) attacks that mistake.
I'm going to boldface below the most important phrases to note:
The argument tells us (as a premise) that a product category (e.g. detergent) has a fixed amount of sales, so all brands in that category are playing a zero-sum game.
If the argument claimed there's little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new brands into existing product categories, well, that would be one thing. But to claim there's little reason for grocers to encourage the introduction of new products is a whole other ballgame.

Hello Avi,

first off, a new brand of detergent is a new grocery product, in my opinion. However, if something is a new grocery product it could be a new brand or a completely new product.
Thus, If the question tries to point to a completely new array of products with a unique USP, then it should be mentioned more clearly.

Now, let's assume that as you say, new grocery product and new brand of products are different things. All that (E) tells us is that there are some grocers that have new types of groceries. The argument is asking for an incentive to make grocers encourage manfuacturers to produce new product types.

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?

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.

Thanks

Hi avigutman : thank you for responding.

I dont think i did a good job asking my question. I should have deleted the original post completely. Please ignore the original post completely.

This was my question instead here

Apologies for the confusion

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).
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?