Market researcher: Detergent manufacturers spend at least 10% of their

Question

Market researcher:    Detergent manufacturers spend at least 10% of their gross revenue on advertising through print and audio-visual media. Yet only 10% of the consumers switch their brands, according to a survey. Since inducing customers to switch brands is not easy, detergent manufacturers would be no worse off economically if they stopped all advertising.

In the table below, select an assumption required by the market researcher's argument and a statement that, if true, would most strongly weaken his argument. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Ujjwalk31 · Answer

The market researcher's argument concludes that detergent makers would suffer no economic loss by halting advertising, based on high ad spend (≥10% revenue) yielding low switching (10%).

Required Assumption
The argument assumes advertising's main purpose is inducing brand switches, as low switching is used to deem ad spend unprofitable.

Without this, low switching doesn't imply ads are worthless (e.g., they could retain customers or build awareness).
Assumption:  The primary role of advertising by a detergent manufacturer is to prompt a change of choice. (B)

Statement Weakening Argument
If the market is huge and captured share yields huge revenue gains, then 10% switching could justify 10% ad spend via net gains from switchers outweighing losses to competitors.

This shows economic benefit to advertising despite low switching rate.
Weaken:  The detergent market is huge and any share of the market captured promises huge gains in gross revenue. (E)

egmat · Answer

Understanding the Argument Structure 
Let's break down what the market researcher is saying:

Premises: 
• Detergent manufacturers spend at least  10%  of gross revenue on advertising
• Only  10%  of consumers switch brands
• Inducing brand-switching is difficult

Conclusion:  Manufacturers would be  no worse off  if they stopped ALL advertising

The Hidden Flaw: 
The researcher assumes that advertising  only  exists to make people switch brands. But what about keeping  current  customers from leaving? This is a classic  scope shift  - the argument ignores other potential purposes of advertising.

---
 Part 1: ASSUMPTION 
 Question:  What MUST be true for this conclusion to hold?

For the conclusion "stop advertising = no economic harm" to be valid, the author  must  assume:

Correct Answer:   "The primary role of advertising by a detergent manufacturer is to prompt a change of choice."

Why? 
If advertising's  main purpose  = getting people to switch brands
And switching is hard/rare
Then advertising seems useless

But if  advertising also serves to  retain  customers (prevent YOUR customers from leaving), then stopping it could hurt you. The argument  ignores  this possibility, so it  assumes  retention isn't the primary purpose.

Why other options fail: 
• Option A (small proportion of income): Irrelevant - the argument already states 10% is spent, size doesn't affect the logic
• Option C (other methods unknown): This would actually  strengthen  the argument, not serve as a necessary assumption
• Option D (all detergents equally effective): This might explain WHY people don't switch, but isn't required for the conclusion
---

Part 2: WEAKEN 
 Question:  What would show the conclusion is WRONG?

We need to show that stopping advertising  would  hurt manufacturers economically.

Correct Answer:   "The detergent market is huge and any share of the market captured promises huge gains in gross revenue."

Why this weakens: 
• The argument dismisses advertising because "only  10%  switch"
• But  10%  of a  HUGE  market = massive revenue
• If the market is enormous, even small percentage gains translate to significant money
•  Therefore,  advertising IS worth the investment - those  10%  switchers represent substantial gains

Key Insight:  The original argument treats  10%  as small, but this answer shows that percentage alone doesn't tell the whole story - the  absolute size  of the market matters!

---
 How the Two Parts Connect: 
• The  Assumption  reveals what the argument takes for granted (advertising = only for switching)
• The  Weaken  attacks from a different angle (even if switching is the goal, it's still worth it due to market size)

Both answers target the argument's flawed reasoning that advertising has no economic value.

Answer: Assumption = B, Weaken = E

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray   DmitryFarber

I was correct with the assumption part but not sure why  (C)  can't be a weakener for the argument. 
The conclusion is detergent manufacturers would be no worse off economically if they stopped all advertising.

(C) Methods other than advertising that may initiate a shift in brand loyalty for a consumer are not known to detergent manufacturers.

My reasoning is if there are methods other than advertising (unknown to detergent manufacturers) that  may   cause a brand loyalty change  because these methods are outside of control for detergent manufacturers. 
Is (C) not a weakener because of the word  "may"  which doesn't indicate a clear effect  OR  because it doesn't cast any doubt on the  relationship between advertising stop and revenues ?

Please let me know where I am faltering in my reasoning.

MartyMurray · Answer

First, we have to be clear about something. "Methods" are not factors beyond people's control. Rather, methods are ways in which people do things. So, "methods" of shifting brand loyalty would not be "outside of control of detergent manufacturers." Rather, what makes sense is to presume that the "methods" mentioned by choice (C) would be employed by manufacturers to shift brand loyalty.

With that in mind, we now can consider that the point of the argument is basically that the method "advertising" doesn't benefit the manufacturers economically.

So, notice that it doesn't matter whether there are other methods of initiating a shift in brand loyalty or whether manufacturers know of such methods.

After all, if manufacturers know of such other methods, advertising doesn't benefit detergent manufacturers, and if they don't know of such other methods, advertising still doesn't benefit them.

So, (C) has no effect on the argument.

Market researcher: Detergent manufacturers spend at least 10% of their

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

Assumption	Weaken
		The budgeted advertising expenditure is only a small proportion of the gross income of detergent manufacturers.
		The primary role of advertising by a detergent manufacturer is to prompt a change of choice.
		Methods other than advertising that may initiate a shift in brand loyalty for a consumer are not known to detergent manufacturers.
		Consumers hold the widespread belief that all detergents are equally effective, regardless of brands.
		The detergent market is huge and any share of the market captured promises huge gains in gross revenue.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Market researcher: Detergent manufacturers spend at least 10% of their

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