Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always cent

I believe option A also significantly weakens the argument due to the phase "many of the chain's customers". This shows that the reason the sandwich sales are low is due to the fact that many customers have not tried it as yet. By showing that most of the customers who have tried the sandwich are satisfied with it, we are given a reason to be optimistic that sales will improve as more customers try the sandwich and thus make the chain more profitable.

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it. Surveys can be unreliable.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors. Irrelevant

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown. Sales can improve now

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options. Correct. Give some hope to the chain owners

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger. Out of scope

cost of having it on the menu:does it include only the advertising cost or the advertising and the cost of preparing the sandwich
as per the argument:there was an heavy investment in the advertising of the new sandwich.the cost of having the sandwich on the menu cannot be recovered unless the sale grows to 4 times.
i think it only talks about the advertising expenses,but not the making charges of sandwich.

ENLIGHTEN ME SIR!!

D suggests that If they were to remove the Veg menu item, The groups who are likely to attend the restaurant would probably bypass the restaurant to some other place where Veg menu is available. Thereby, decreasing the sales of other items and decreasing the profit.

you said " no one guarantee that the people satisfied of the veg sandwich will come again and consume it "
And, what guarantee you that the group of dinners will all of them consume something at that restaurant ! Maybe , just the friend who want the veg sandwich who will consume it , and the others won't consume anything, and for example, waiting for their friend to finish to go and eat in anotther place !
Why do you assume that all the dinners will eat something or even consume something at the restaurant, thus increasing the profits of the restaurant

I have a doubt on option D:

(D) When even one member of group of diner???s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

Option D is a factual statement. Despite this being true, sales of veg. sandwich are not picking. So, D is irrelevant.

Moreover, OG explanation states that the chain's overall profit can be increased by encouraging large groups to eat at the chain.

My counter: Well, the chain is already doing this. The argument states that despite HEAVY MARKETING, sales are not picking.

Even if a large group come to the chain, the one who is a vegetarian or wants low-fat menu option would each veg sandwich and other others would eat the regular hamburger.

Though I marked it correct, I have one question here.
Is weaken a argument different from weaken a conclusion?

See, I have seen in many questions in which we have to weaken or strengthen either the whole argument or a specific assertion, premise, conclusion etc.
How should we approach the question in these cases?

When we evaluate a potential weakener, we want to know if that choice is relevant to the specific conclusion we're trying to weaken.

In this case, the conclusion is not that sales of the vegetarian sandwich will go up. We are told explicitly in the argument itself that a quadruple increase in sales is unlikely, even after heavy marketing. So the author has already conceded that point.

The conclusion we're asked to weaken is that "the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich." This goes beyond sales of the veg sandwich and asks us to consider what impact dropping the sandwich would have on overall profits. Will dropping the sandwich lead to an increase in overall profits for the chain? The right choice will push us in the direction of saying, "Nah."

So (D) is definitely relevant, because it identifies a specific way that inclusion of the veg sandwich could generate an alternate source of profits: The sales made to omnivorous customers who arrive with vegetarian customers in a single group.

No other answer choice makes this logical connection to the chain's overall profits. That's why we keep (D) and ultimately recognize that it's the best choice available.

As I've mentioned previously, (D) doesn't have to destroy the author's argument to be our best choice. It doesn't have to account for every single detail that we might want to know once a group of customers has entered the restaurant, like volume of sales during that visit or frequency of return visits. And it doesn't have to give us more detailed figures about the costs of the veg sandwich.

(D) simply tells us that a vegetarian menu item can drive other kinds of sales that contribute to profit. Now we know that keeping the veg sandwich can potentially generate sales, while dropping the veg sandwich can potentially lose sales. This is enough to cast doubt on the conclusion.

Furthermore, the chain's marketing expenses might not have any impact on this logic. If true, (D) tells us that the inclusion of a veg menu item (not the amount of marketing spend) is what tends to stop a group from going somewhere else. The chain could cut their marketing budget to $0, and their menu would still meet the condition of including one veg, low-fat option.

Add all of this to the fact that every other answer choice is worse at weakening the conclusion, and we have enough to settle on (D) and continue. I hope this helps clear up how (D) really does address the conclusion that was presented.

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. Kudos!

I have one more doubt w.r.t. the interpretation of Option D.

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

I had interpreted (D) as: Since even if one member of group of diner’s prefers a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants (THIS FOOD CHAIN) that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu option. As per the argument, the food chain has only one vegetarian or low-fat food item (Verg sandwich), the group of diner’s would avoid coming here and would rather prefer a restaurant where there are few varieties of vegetarian or low-fat menu options.

Be careful when you re-phrase or re-interpret what's written. "The group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options" is NOT the same as "The group prefers restaurants where there are a few varieties of veg or low-fat items." And we have no evidence for the latter statement.

"Lack" can mean "have none of" or "don't have enough of." So the furthest you could push choice (D) is to: "The group tends to avoid restaurants that don't have enough vegetarian or low-fat menu options." Even then, (D) still casts doubt on the decision to drop from 1 veg option (which could be enough) to 0 veg options (which definitely is not enough). Furthermore, we still know that (D) is better than every other answer choice. This is all enough to keep (D) and move on.

Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always centered on hamburger, added its first vegetarian sandwich, much lower in fat than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.

(D) When even one member of group of diner’s is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options. ( Relevant answer)

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.

Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always centered on hamburger, added its first vegetarian sandwich, much lower in fat than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it. - this represents the preference of a small minority of the restaurant chain's customers. A small minority will not be enough to quadruple the sales.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors. - does not weaken the argument

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown. - this actually strengthens the argument, not weaken it.

(D) When even one member of a group of diners is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options - here, we know that people in good numbers have a preference for restaurants that include vegetarian/low-fat food if just one of the group members have a preference for it. (D) represents the most probable chance to attract many customers and hence gain better profits. This would weaken the argument. Hence, (D) is the right answer choice here.

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger. - this would actually agree with the conclusion, not weaken it.

Hi Karishma,

Let's assume that the restaurant chain needs to sale 1000 sandwiches to recover the cost of the newly introduced sandwich.

Most word is very generic in option A. What if only 100 people have tried the sandwiches and 90 of them are satisfied? Still a long way to achieve a sale of 1000 sandwiches. Based on this we cannot certainly guarantee that restaurant can be profitable by selling new sandwiches.

Please give kudos if you find this helpful.

B; P; P; P/C Conclusion: the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich (since such an increase is unlikely) so more profitable to drop?? What if it costs a ridiculous amount to drop something from the menu? What if dropping outweighs the costs of keeping? What if people need the option there for the group to go?

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.
“Since such an increase [in the “sandwich’s sales”] is unlikely.” Therefore, it’s irrelevant to point out only a segment of the market has tried and liked.

B. Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.
If there’s no strong preference among the competitors, it leaves the information unbiased. So if anything, it could support the argument in a way, leveling out the argument’s other elements/factors and making the current point (of heavy marketing $$ and lower number of sales) more pronounced and strengthening the argument.

C. Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.
Are we worried about the hamburger sales? We’re worried about the sandwich sales. If anything, this could strengthen. If there’s more offerings else where, maybe this sandwich would do poorly too.

D. When even one member of a group of diners is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options
Interesting. Even if one person is a vegetarian and a restaurant lacks vegetarian stuff, the WHOLE group doesn’t go (generally speaking). So you would not only lose vegetarian sales but also lose sales overall. This would hit profits overall for the company since all sales would be impacted. So removing a money losing item would make the restaurant lose even more potential sales. This seems to hit all aspects of the conclusion and definitely calls into question the soundness of the decision to remove the item.

E. An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.
Strengther if anything. This is just a supporting/related point that shows that it would probs not work to do the vegetarian (much lower in fat) sandwich.

D suggests that if the restaurant drops the sandwich it may lose some dinners, who come in group with vegetarian and low-fat choice option. So it will wise to drop the item.

The answer is D.

Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants, whose menu had always centered on hamburger, added its first vegetarian sandwich, much lower in fat than the chain’s other offerings. Despite heavy marketing, the new sandwich accounts for a very small proportion of the chain’s sales. The sandwich’s sales would have to quadruple to cover the costs associated with including it on the menu. Since such an increase is unlikely, the chain would be more profitable if it dropped the sandwich.

P: Last year a chain of fast-food restaurants added a vegetarian sandwich with much lower fat than other offerings.
P: The new sandwich accounts for a small proportion of sales despite heavy marketing
P: Sales of the sandwich would have to quadruple for break-even
C: The increase in sales is unlikely, so the chain should drop the sandwich to be more profitable

OK so what’s happening here is there is a paradox. There is heavy marketing, yet the sandwich accounts for low sales. So the chain thinks that they would be more PROFITABLE if they were to drop the sandwich.

A weakener has to attack that idea somehow. Let’s find out guys.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.

All this tells us is that among the people (a very small proportion) who have tried it are satisfied. Is it still the case that the chain could be more profitable by dropping the sandwich even though a ‘small’ proportion are satisfied? Absolutely.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.

Plausible. But, this doesn’t weaken.

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.

Hamburger sales have nothing to do with the profitability of vegetarian sandwiches.

(D) When even one member of a group of diners is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options

Correct. Here’s an alternative factor that the author did not consider. Groups with vegetarians might end up attracting more customers to the chain…so maybe they won’t be less profitable by keeping it on the menu after all.

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.

The passage doesn’t spend time discussing the expected/projected success of a new menu addition, which this choice seems to emphasize. Either way, the focus is on the sale of the vegetarian burger, not low fat hamburger.

Doesn't option D simply generalize a situation or provide an opinion rather than sticking to the question's passage?