It is currently 18 Dec 2017, 10:43

# Final Week of R1 Decisions:

CHAT Rooms | MIT Sloan | McCombs

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The candy manufacturer's claim that employee

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 921

Kudos [?]: 283 [7], given: 0

The candy manufacturer's claim that employee [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 02:39
7
KUDOS
29
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:19) correct 41% (01:20) wrong based on 2140 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 283 [7], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 1402

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 04:18
B...

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 921

Kudos [?]: 283 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 12:06
1
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 283 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1337

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 21:28
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

its a good question.

B too....

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1050

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 0

Location: CA

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2006, 23:25
Good question, B for me too
_________________

Don't be afraid to take a flying leap of faith.. If you risk nothing, than you gain nothing...

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 02 Jun 2010
Posts: 29

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2010, 10:20
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.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 44

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2010, 10:28
its a clear B

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 2

Schools: Haas, HBS, UNC, Duke, Kellogg, etc
WE 1: Investment Banking Domain, Functionally-Technology

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2010, 11:32
yep clear B...

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 151

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2010, 16:03

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2010, 07:03
B is for me.

Only B could make "theft" in potential sales not overstated.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 167

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 33

WE 1: 3 (Mining Operations)

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2010, 00:35
"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."

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 33

Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 105

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2010, 09:33
B

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 414

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 112

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2010, 21:02
b ---no surprises

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 112

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2010, 21:17
It's B and the Q is pretty straight forward.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2010, 10:48
i choose d

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 18:45
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..

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 36 [1], given: 35

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2010, 13:38
1
KUDOS
(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.

Kudos [?]: 36 [1], given: 35

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2011, 05:38
B strengthens

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2011, 06:33
clearly b

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 96

Kudos [?]: 83 [10], given: 4

Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Duke '15
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2011, 07:58
10
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 83 [10], given: 4

Re: CR candy manufacturer   [#permalink] 25 Aug 2011, 07:58

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by