Restaurant reviewer: In response to lagging sales based on a

This really does come down to a debate between A and C and you have to determine which point most strengthens the argument. The argument states that the Lanzillotti’s pizza is struggling due to poor quality. Notice they say poor quality, not a lack of organic ingredients. Customers don't necessarily stop buying because the pizza isn't organic, it just isn't good. [I guess you have to assume that general quality in the pizza world is pretty focused around taste.] In order to change the perception in the minds of the consumers, Lanzillotti’s pizza started a marketing campaign around organic ingredients and flavorful sauces, to provide some evidence that the company is focused on the quality of the pizza. Again, the end result or focus of the chance is the quality of the pizza, not the inclusion of organic ingredients. In the conclusion, the author states that the Lanzillotti’s pizza tasted no better than Valvanos - again that is an overall quality assessment. The author did not talk about the level of organic ingredients when compared with Valvanos - he talked about the overall quality of the pizza and equated it to Valvanos. Choice C states that Valvanos isn't particularly good, so matching Valvanos in terms of quality means that quality of the pizza hasn't really improved after all. C is the correct answer.

KW
_________________

Be careful with the exact wording of the arguments. There isn't a specific link made between organic ingredients and taste. That link is an assumption you have to make because the argument only states that the pizza was reintroduced with a marketing campaign that notes organic ingredients and flavorful sauces. Organic ingredients are not inherently yummy - a pizza full of organic carrots is probably not tasty.

Also, look carefully at the wording of the conclusion. The author's conclusion is that the reintroduction of the pizza (which was initiated with a marketing campaign that talked about organic ingredients) was just empty marketing language and didn't actually result in good tasting pizza. The author didn't say the company lied in the marketing campaign by not using organic ingredients. The use of organic ingredients is simply a component of the advertising campaign's attempt to convince people that there were real changes to the pizza that should result in better quality. The conclusion (main point) of the argument is that the pizza isn't actually good, regardless of the ingredients!

Does that clear things up?

KW
_________________

Very tough.
I chose A.
Both A and C basically say the same thing with a subtle difference: A talks about known ingredients, while C talks about quality in general.
I chose A, because we are trying to find out if the L pizza is using organic ingredients (something that apparently affects the taste)...
Can someone help out with this?

I understand where you're coming from, but I recognized a link between organic ingredients and quality Pizza.
Also, when the writer concludes that there was false advertisement on behalf of the pizza place.
But the advertisement was for use of organic products to upgrade the quality of the pizza.
maybe it wasn't enough, but how can the writer conclude that the advertisement was false?

Yes.. kind of...
still not sure i'll be able to figure a similar question later on my own

Let's look at your situation. First of all, you eliminated your way to the 2 choices that were the most reasonable. If you are able to do that consistently you are greatly increasing your odds (and therefore score) on CR. Fine tuning your CR abilities is difficult and takes time. In the future, as you eliminate down to 2 choices, look carefully and the small differences between the 2 and go back to the wording of the argument. Then, as you review your work, review very closely those questions where you got down to 2 choices (even those you got right). Pay close attention to why the GMAT says one is right and one is wrong.

You will get there in time. Recognize that you won't be perfect - I still get tricked by difficult CR questions - but you can and will get better!

KW
_________________

whats the issue with B here. If other people also feel the same as author does, it should strengthen the authors argument.

We need to "most strengthen the reviewers conclusion", which is "I can only conclude that the reintroduction was simply empty advertising language". To strengthen the conclusion we need to ensure there is a strong connection between the premises and the conclusion.

P: L's sales are down due to poor quality
P: L launched a marketing campaign re: organic & flavorful sauces - emphasizing quality
P: Pizza tasted like V's pizza
C: Therefore reintroduction is empty advertising

There is a significant logical gap (filled with assumptions) between pizza tasting like Valvano's and the reintroduction being empty advertising. Why does tasting like Valvano's pizza mean the advertising was false? What's up with Valvano's pizza? So many unanswered questions...

If we want to really strengthen the argument, we need some additional information to bridge that logical gap. Strengthening an existing premise does not fill that logical gap. Remember that on strengthening questions you are really making a key assumption a stated premise...

KW
_________________

I have a query regarding why C is the correct answer. Now, I see that the ad campaign stated the evidence of emphasis on quality pizza and that doesn't mean that it would be the highest quality pizza so even if valvano's pizza is not among the highest quality pizza it doesn't mean that it's not a quality pizza. So, if valvano's pizza can be a quality pizza then lanzilloti can also be so this option in a way weakens the argument. Furthermore, in option A I see that organic ingredients is not in Valvano’s and since organic ingredients is an evidence of quality pizza this means that Valvano's is not a quality pizza and therefore lanzilloti is also not a quality pizza. Therefore, I think option A should be the correct answer. Can anyone explain.

Conclusion-
The LP did not improve the quality of pizza , though it claimed so in ads. In choice- A… We are just getting to know that VP does not add organic ingredients to its pizzas. Having organic ingredients is one way of having a better quality, but there could be several other ways of having a better quality pizza, even when we do not have organic ingredients in it. Just because LP taste was found be comparable to that of VP pizza, we can't support the author's point that quality of LP pizza did not improve. what if , even without organic ingredients, VP produces high quality pizzas. .... CORRECT ANSWER CHOICE IS C because if we see reverse of it then it weakens the conclusion. and we have to strengthen the conclusion, we are definitely doing so if it is proved that quality of VP pizzas is not among the best. this is just a wording trap many may have got entrapped into in this question. most of the people would have picked it if it said something like this-- Valvano’s Pizza is considered among the worst-quality pizzas in town. if we observe the given answer choice is not ruling out this possibility, whereas the reverse of it would have done so. Hence C is correct answer choice. Remember- we are supporting not proving that the quality of pizzas of either LP or VP is not good.
_________________

Respectfully, I disagree with the answer to this question. I'm not going to justify another answer--I just think the question needs to be revised (I know what source it comes from but I won't name names).

Put simply, this is a non-Official question where a lack of editing makes identification of the answer more or less just a guess!

I've made a video explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7SwBP1S0I

In short, however, apply this:

a) IF we can assume that organic = better, this is viable -- ??

b) We're only concerned with the objective quality of the pizza; in any case it does nothing more than give us L = V, which is established in the argument NO

c) V is "not the best," implying that L = "not the best." DOES NOT, however, indicate lack of improvement (e.g., improvement from POOR to ACCEPTABLE) -- ??

d) Popularity of the pizza is irrelevant to quality -- out of scope. NO

e) Appetizers and desserts are not pizza -- out of scope. NO

So is the answer C or A? Depends on whether we choose to assume a) organic = better or c) that "not the best" is "not improved."

Neither one is a particularly good assumption to make. Flip a coin!

HOWEVER, if we could limit the logic in C to somehow imply NO IMPROVEMENT, e.g., "Valvano's is considered to be among the worst..." then it would be more correct. In short, the author tried to get clever with the double negation "not among the best" and tripped him/herself.

The moral of the story is to use Official questions for Verbal or risk confusion like this.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

C. The gap in logic in the author’s argument is that he uses the premise “Lanzillotti’s pizza is no better than Valvano’s pizza” as evidence that Lanzillotti’s pizza has not raised its quality. But this is a generalization – if Valvano’s is the best pizza in town, then Lanzillotti’s has made huge strides to get to that level. Accordingly, answer choice C is correct, as it removes the flaw in that argument. If Valvano’s is not the highest-quality pizza, then being on the same level as Valvano’s is not necessarily indicative of high quality in itself.
_________________

So for me it came down to A and C. Lets look at conclusion. "the reintroduction was simply empty advertising language". simply pizza was not good. so here question is not about organic vs non-organic. it is really about the quality. it can be the dough or the sauce or may be the time they keep pizza in side oven. Overall quality is not as good as other pizzeria. C should be best answer on the grounds of quality that we want to prove.

VeritasKarishma In option C valvano pizza is not among the highest quality pizza but it can be among good quality pizza..So how can C be correct

Option (C) doesn't say that Valvano is not THE highest quality pizza. It says it is not among the highest quality pizzas so presumably there are quite a few pizzas in that category. It is just another way of saying that Valvano is not considered that high in quality either. So if Lanzillotti’s isn't better than Valvano, Lanzillotti’s isn't that high quality either.
_________________

C. Valvano’s Pizza is not considered among the highest-quality pizzas in town.this option is extreme. As reputation of restaurant food was of poor quality, and Advertising is meant for "evidence of a new emphasis on quality pizza" , [color=#7a0026]empty advertising mean either quality is not improved or pizza do not contain organic ingredient. But, contrary to this option, even if quality is high now, it is not necessarily be the highest in the town. So no doubt this option is wrong.[/color]


A. Valvano’s Pizza is not known for using organic ingredients in its pizzas.((not using those ingredients mean, advertisement was not truthful, or in other words empty. Thus I'll go with this option))

My choice, Option A is correct as best fit.
Press Kudos, if my answer was helpful.

This is much difference between "among high qualities" and "among highest qualities". Some infinities are greater than some other infinities. Please explain where i am getting it wrong.

Besides, advertisement says for a better quality. So even if it is not high, even if it is just medium, it is still better and improved than "poor".

Could someone help to explain why B is wrong? If other diners in that same evening tried the pizza at Lanzilloti and also felt that it was no better than Valvano's, then wouldn't that strengthen the conclusion that the pizza at Lanzillato is no better than Valvano's pizza?

Please help clarify this doubt. thank you

Good question - and the big issue with your logic is that it looks like you have the conclusion wrong. The conclusion is "the reintroduction was simply empty advertising language" - note two things about that phrase below:

1) It includes the word "conclude"

2) The rest of the sentence offers a reason "why" that's true (the pizza was no better than Valvano's pizza). Note that there's no explanation for why the pizza wasn't any better than Valvano's ("it was just advertising" doesn't explain the taste) and conclusions have to have reasons why they're true.

Based on these you should see that the conclusion is that the reintroduction was simply empty advertising language, and so at that point it doesn't further the conclusion if a few extra people thought Lanzillotti's was the same quality as Valvano's - we don't know whether Valvano's is excellent or terrible, so that's that missing gap we need to fill.