GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 24 Mar 2019, 06:24

### 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

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

# The candy manufacturer's claim that employee

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 872
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 03:39
8
30
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:40) correct 39% (01:46) wrong based on 1921 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

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

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company
Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 91
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Duke '15
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2011, 08:58
11
1
Weaken the argument:
Workers eating candy -> Doesn't cost company sales.

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold
Actually strengthens the argument
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
Directly tell us that eaten candy can be sold to others. Correct
(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.
Has no effect on the argument as we don't care which employee eats how much
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest
Tells us about production not how sales are effected.
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company
Tells us nothing about lost sales.

_________________

Show Thanks to fellow members with Kudos its shows your appreciation and its free

##### General Discussion
Director
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 872

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 13:06
1
joemama142000 wrote:
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

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

A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold

B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees

C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.

D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest

E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

Theft is overstated because employees that eat the candy included in theft wouldnt buy the candy anyways.
OA is B. If the candy eaten by employees could have been sold. then theft is not overstated.
Intern
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 21

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2010, 11:20
joemama142000 wrote:
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

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

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

Only (B) explains a good reason why candies eaten by employees could affect potential sales and hence undermining the argument.
Intern
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Posts: 12

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2010, 08:03
B is for me.

Only B could make "theft" in potential sales not overstated.
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 116
WE 1: 3 (Mining Operations)

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2010, 01:35
"Overstated" is the cue here !!!!
_________________

Regards,
Invincible...
"The way to succeed is to double your error rate."
"Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 166

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2010, 22:17
It's B and the Q is pretty straight forward.
Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 11

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 19:45
The conclusion is that the manufacturer claims about the theft is overstated right ?

and the question is about which weakens the argument.

so IMO it is A, if the employees are eating the defective candies which cannot be sold then it is not a loss for the company
and the manufacturer is definitely over stating about the losses.

If A is true wouldn't it weaken the argument.

Correct me if i am wrong..
Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 221

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2010, 14:38
1
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees.

The candies eaten basically are NOT SOLD by the company. therefore eating them really does not cost to the company.
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 159
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2011, 11:16
Option A actually strengthens the passage.
Options C,D and E are irrelevant in the context.
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 168
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2011, 09:47
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 55

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2011, 18:43
joemama142000 wrote:
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

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

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

B. It explains why the conclusion is not overstated.
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2011
Posts: 152

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2011, 09:56
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 301
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2012, 11:21
3
1
1
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

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

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold

If the workers eat only those candies that wouldn't be sold, then the argument is strengthened. After all, the company doesn't stand to make any profit from candies it would have thrown away.

(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees

The argument says that the idea it is losing money to candy-gobbling employees is overstated. Well, if all of the candy eaten by employees represents lost sales, then the case isn't overstated. The company is losing money to this "theft." Therefore (B) weakens the argument.

(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.

Doesn't really address whether the claim is overstated.

(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest

Well imagine that most of this candy is defective, i.e., it would not have sold anyways. Regardless of what season it is, the argument would not be weakened.

(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

This seems to match up with the part of the argument that says the claim is overstated.
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 01 Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2013, 08:51
Answer should be B.. since it showing potential sales lost to the company..
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 133
Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: Berkeley Haas
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2013, 10:42
Conclusion : Candy Manufacturers claim of losses through theft exceeds potential sales is false .
Premise : Candy eaten would not lead to potential sales because
Candy eaten on the job and not paid for, is eaten one piece at a time by workers who would not buy the whole box.

Assumption : Potential customers ( non employees) wont buy single candy , they would only purchase boxes !!

Weaken the Assumption saying : Potential customers will buy single candy ... is rephrased by B
"Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees"

Hope this helps !!
Manager
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 157
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2013, 04:42
Straight B, if you can pre-think this one.

the argument says that the candies are eaten by workers who would not be willing to buy it, but this could hurt sales as non employees could obviously buy those that are being consumed by workers.
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 2
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2013, 03:45
1
IMO B is the correct answer.
That was easy, it took me 50 secs.
Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2014, 02:22
I would go for B since directly weakens the argument by stating that those eaten candies might have increased the profits.
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Posts: 2
GPA: 3.64
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2014, 22:03
joemama142000 wrote:
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

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

(A) The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold
(B) Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
(C) A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.
(D) Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest
(E) The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

Can you pls explain why the answer is not A?
Re: The candy manufacturer's claim that employee   [#permalink] 30 Mar 2014, 22:03

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by