GetThisDone wrote:
Market Analyst: Recent research confirms that the main cause of bad breath is bacteria build-up on the tongue. The research also concludes that tongue scrapers, when used properly, can eliminate up to 40% of the bacteria from the tongue. As the effectiveness of tongue scrapers becomes more widely known, the market for less effective breath freshening products, such as mints, gums, and sprays, will decline significantly.
Which of the following provides the best evidence that the analyst’s argument is flawed?
(A) Some breath freshening products are advertised to eliminate up to 30% of the bacteria from the tongue.
(B) Tongue scrapers have already been on the market for a number of years.
(C) Many dentists recommend regular flossing, and not the use of the tongue scraper, to combat bad breath.
(D) A recent survey shows that 94% of those who regularly purchase breath freshening products are aware of the effectiveness of the tongue scraper.
(E) Some people buy breath freshening products for reasons other than to fight bad breath.
Main CR Qs link - Main link -
https://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-qs-600-700 ... 31508.htmlThis question is part of the GMAT Club Critical Reasoning: "Weaken an argument" revision Project. OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
The market analyst concludes that the market for breath freshening products will decline as the effectiveness of the tongue scraper becomes more widely known.
To show that this argument is flawed, we must attack one of two assumptions: that consumers are primarily interested in products that are most effective in fighting bad breath, or that consumers are currently unaware of the effectiveness of the tongue scraper.
(A) This statement does not attack either one of the assumptions. In fact, it may actually strengthen the argument by pointing out that some breath freshening products are less effective than tongue scrapers at eliminating bacteria.
(B) This statement could weaken the argument by attacking the second assumption (consumers are currently unaware of the tongue scraper). If the tongue scraper has been on the market for a while, maybe consumers are already aware of its effectiveness. However, just because the product is on the market doesn't mean consumers are aware of its effectiveness. The analyst’s conclusion states that as consumers learn about tongue scrapers, the market for breath freshening products will decline, regardless of whether the tongue scraper has already been on the market.
(C) While this certainly doesn’t help the market analyst’s case, we don’t know what percentage of dentists recommend flossing over the tongue scraper, and we can’t be sure how this recommendation affects the consumption of breath freshening products.
(D) CORRECT. This statement weakens the argument by attacking one of the main assumptions of the argument: people who use breath freshening products don’t already know about the effectiveness of the tongue scraper. If 94% of those who consume breath freshening products already know about the tongue scraper, and if these consumers have continued to purchase breath freshening products, then only 6% of those who consume breath freshening products could decide to stop purchasing these products upon learning about the tongue scrapers effectiveness in fighting bad breath. Even if all 6% stopped purchasing the products, this would hardly create a “significant decline” in the market.
(E) This statement could weaken the argument by attacking the first assumption (consumers are primarily interested in products that are most effective in fighting bad breath). These particular consumers would not necessarily stop consuming breath freshening products upon learning of a more effective product, such as the tongue scraper. However, we have no information on what percentage of the market these people represent.
_________________