In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil

Question

In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook its Fast Fries, instead of the less healthful corn oil that it had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt sales of Fast Fries. However, this claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King’s own sales figures, Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim?

A) Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.

B) Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.

C) Fastfood King’s customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.

D) The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

E) The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.

MacFauz · Accepted Answer

Fastfood King claims that their sales had been hurt by the change. The argument says that the claim was not true as the sales had increased by 10%. If the sales of other items had increased by 20% ( or anything more than 10%) then fastfood king could have a valid argument that sales had been hurt because sales of this product had not increased as much as it had for other products.

A clearly provides a solution and hence answer is A.

A clearly provides a solution and hence answer is A.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This argument concerns the impact of the change in cooking oil used by Fastfood King, and whether or not this change had an adverse impact on sales. It is given that sales of Fast Fries increased by 10 percent subsequent to the change. The issue is whether or not this 10 percent increase compares favorably to the increase one would expect taking other factors into account, including in particular the percentage increase enjoyed by Fastfood King’s other offerings.

A. CORRECT.  This statement indicates that Fastfood King’s total food sales increased by less than 10 percent. As the sales of Fast Fries increased at a higher rate of 10 percent, this strongly suggests that the change to lowfat oil did not adversely impact the sales of Fast Fries.

B. The profit margins of different Fastfood King offerings are not relevant to the argument.

C. Any preference for the taste of corn oil over the new lowfat oil would damage, not support, the conclusion that the change has not negatively impacted the sales of Fast Fries.

D. The fact that Fastfood King was visited by 20 percent more people last year suggests that consumption of Fast Fries, which increased by only 10 percent, may have been adversely affected by the change. This would weaken the conclusion, not strengthen it.

E. That the sales of Fast Fries increased by 20 percent in the previous year suggests that the rate of increase was slowed last year, possibly as a result of the cooking oil change. This would weaken the conclusion that the change did not have any negative impact on sales, rather than strengthen it.

harkabir · Answer

Hi Fauz

Shouldn't it be E? The oil used to cook fries has been changed. E clearly points out that the growth in sales after the change in oil has dropped from 20% to 10%. Further the claims made by Fast Food King and by examiner relate to the sale of fries only and not to the total sales of the restaurant.

What do you think?

SOURH7WK · Answer

E is not within the scope of argument. Its talking about "year before last year" not about last year.

harkabir · Answer

My reading is this:

2010-2011 (year before last) - sales grew by 20% over 2009-2010
2011 Jan (last year Jan) - oil changed
2011-2012 - sales grew by 10% over 2010-2011

Do you think this is incorrect

SOURH7WK · Answer

Yes ur thinking is correct. Now the argument is : 2011 Jan (last year Jan) - oil changed----->2011-2012 - sales grew by 10% over 2010-2011

So does this line "2010-2011 (year before last) - sales grew by 20% over 2009-2010" gives us any insight why/how sales increased in 2011-2012. What information u can derive from this which can make u believe that "Yes Fast Fries sales increased by 10% in 2011-2012.

Marcab · Answer

Can you guys please clear my doubt.
A states that total sales increased by LESS than 10% last year. It means that the sales can grow o.00001% or 9.99% as well. We can't be so sure about that.
E states that the rate if growth in sales was hurt. Doesn't this statement means that the sales were hurt.
Please let me know if I am missing something.

HiteshPunjabi · Answer

Hi Marcab, i did the same analysis and selected E and couldnt convince myself that A is the correct ans.

Finally realized that trick is in the Q, most of us ended up supporting the wrong conclusion.

Which of the following, if true,  most strongly supports the argument  against   Fastfood King's claim?
We need to support this argument ---  fastfood sales were not hurt on french fries by change in plan 
A-supports this well saying all product sales increase were less than 10 % whereas french fries sale was more than 10%.

JusTLucK04 · Answer

A nice and clear A...All sales went down except that of FF...The new oil is definitely not to be blamed here

bestfaculty03 · Answer

The argument says that:
1) fact: started using low-fat oil at beginning of last year
2) fact: sold 10% more fries last year (low-fat oil) than year before (corn oil)
3) BUT store claims that sales have been hurt by use of low-fat oil

Author's conclusion: store's claim is incorrect because of premise - 2

How to support author's claim? Show that the percentage increase for fries is better than the general increase in revenues for everything - so, the fries can't have "hurt" sales because their growth rate is better than the general growth rate for the whole company. And that's what choice A says.

Yuji314 · Answer

Sorry for reopening an old thread...could somebody plz help me to understand the phrase "hurt sales"...I thought whenever sales of X increased then sales of X is not "hurt".

Or is it possible for us to interpret that if  sales increase does not meet expectation / sales increase of Fast Fries is not as large as sales increase of all goods , then the sales are "hurt"?

BrownBearBR · Answer

Hello! In option E, the rate of growth slowed but the overall sales increased. If fries sales went up from say 100 to 120 from 2009 to 2010 (20% increase), the rate of growth slowed to 10% but in 2011 the sales are 132 which indicates sales did not decrease/goes, rather increased, which goes against the fastfood king's claims that the change hurt their sales. Then why is E wrong here? Is my reasoning correct?

guddo · Answer

In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook its Fast Fries, instead of the less healthful corn oil that it had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt sales of Fast Fries. However, this claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King’s own sales figures, Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim?

The argument says the oil change did not hurt Fast Fries sales because Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than the year before.  The best support would show that Fast Fries did well relative to the company’s overall sales , not just that sales rose in absolute terms.

A) Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.

This is correct. If overall food sales increased by less than 10 percent, but Fast Fries sales increased by 10 percent, then Fast Fries outperformed the company’s general food sales. That supports the argument that the oil change did not hurt Fast Fries sales.

B) Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.

This is irrelevant. The issue is sales of Fast Fries, not profit margins on other products.

C) Fastfood King’s customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.

This weakens the argument. If customers prefer the old oil, then the change may indeed have hurt sales.

D) The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

This weakens the argument. If customer visits rose by more than 20 percent but Fast Fries sales rose only 10 percent, then Fast Fries may have performed worse relative to customer traffic.

E) The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.

This also weakens the argument. If Fast Fries had been growing by 20 percent before the oil change but grew only 10 percent after it, the change may have slowed sales growth.

Answer: (A)

egmat · Answer

Hi BrownBearBR,

Your arithmetic is right, and that's actually the trap. Under E, yes, absolute sales still went up ( 100  →  120  →  132 ). But notice what you're proving: that sales  rose . The argument isn't about whether sales rose - it's about whether the oil change  hurt  them.

Reframe what "hurt sales" means.  It doesn't require sales to fall. It means sales came out  lower than they otherwise would have . So the real question is: was the  10%  increase a healthy result, or a suppressed one?

Now re-read E with that lens. The exact words:  "The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a  20 percent  increase in Fast Fries sales."  So the trend was:

- Before the oil change:  +20%  per year
- After the oil change:  +10%

The growth rate got cut in half right when the oil switched. That coincidence is exactly what someone claiming "the change hurt sales" would point to. The fries were on a  20%  pace, and something dragged them down to  10%  - plausibly the new oil.  Therefore  E  weakens  the author's conclusion; it does not support it.

Compare that to A: total food sales rose  less  than  10%  while fries rose  10% , so fries actually  outperformed  everything else - that's clean support that the oil didn't hold them back.

Turn one knob to feel it:

- If E said the prior year's increase was only  5% , then jumping to  10%  would look like an  acceleration  - now it would support the author.
- As written, at  20% , the  10%  is a slowdown - so it points to harm.

Same absolute-increase fact; the direction of support flips entirely based on the baseline trend. That's the piece your reasoning was missing.

Answer: A

In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards