In a recent marketing campaign, a beverage company claimed that their

Question

In a recent marketing campaign, a beverage company claimed that their new product resulted in a significant increase in customer satisfaction compared to their previous product line. The company attributed this improvement to the addition of natural ingredients and a revamped formula.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously challenge the company's explanation for the increased customer satisfaction?

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously challenge the company's explanation for the increased customer satisfaction?

A) The company conducted extensive market research and found that customers were more likely to be satisfied with products that had vibrant packaging.
B) Competitor companies also experienced a rise in customer satisfaction during the same period, despite not making similar changes to their product formulas.
C) Customer feedback surveys revealed that the majority of respondents were unaware of the specific changes made to the product's ingredients or formula.
D) The company's sales figures showed a significant increase in sales volume following the launch of the new product, regardless of customer satisfaction levels.
E) Independent lab tests conducted on the new product found no substantial difference in taste or quality compared to the previous product line.

arushi118 · Answer

Correct is: C - as if most of the customer's were not aware of the changes made to the product's ingredients or formula, then it is not possible that the increase in sales was due to these factors.

shanalshekhar · Answer

Customers are unaware of changes made in the ingredients of the product
Still their satisfaction has increased
So, as per them changes must have been made to the product, but they can't feel the one ingredient change causes
So, as per them something else has changed in the product. Thus, company's explanation is weakened.
Is this correct?

totamofficiis · Answer

C do not give me any additional information. It just assumes that awareness and satisfaction goes hand in hand. on the other had i have definite proof from the competitor lab report that it is genuinely something other that those factor, without implicit assumptions. I am seriously lost in this case to be honest.

guddo · Answer

In a recent marketing campaign, a beverage company claimed that their new product resulted in a significant increase in customer satisfaction compared to their previous product line. The company attributed this improvement to the addition of natural ingredients and a revamped formula.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously challenge the company's explanation for the increased customer satisfaction?

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously challenge the company's explanation for the increased customer satisfaction?

The company claims that customer satisfaction increased because of changes to ingredients and formula. So the argument is: formula change → higher satisfaction.

(A) This says customers like vibrant packaging. That introduces another possible cause. But it does not say packaging actually changed. So it does not strongly challenge the explanation.

(B) Competitors also saw higher satisfaction without changing formulas. This suggests an outside factor may be responsible. It weakens the claim, but it does not directly show that this company’s formula change was irrelevant.

(C) Surveys show most customers were unaware of the ingredient or formula changes. If customers did not know about the changes, those changes likely did not cause their satisfaction. The company’s explanation depends on customers responding to the new formula. If they were unaware, the causal link collapses. This directly attacks the explanation.

(D) Sales increased. Sales are different from satisfaction. This does not address the cause of satisfaction. Irrelevant.

(E) Lab tests show no substantial difference in taste or quality. That weakens the idea that the formula improved the product. However, satisfaction could rise due to perception or branding. So this weakens, but less directly than (C).

Answer: (C)

guddo · Answer

Yes, your reasoning is correct.

If customers were  unaware of the ingredient changes , then those changes could not have influenced their judgment. A cause must be something that can affect people’s perception or experience.

If satisfaction increased but customers did not know about the changes, then the increase must be due to  some other factor . That directly weakens the company’s explanation that the formula change caused the improvement.

vasu1104 · Answer

new product resulted in significant increase in customer satisfaction compared to previous one. 
 reason -natural ingredients and revamped formula.

author is assuming people really cared about those two things or people were aware of such changes.

A but we dont know whether this product has vibrant packaging. 
 B that means increase is all over in the whole industry. but here we are concerned about this particular company. many be competitor has better product from the beginning so we cant compare that. reject. 
 C that means its not the either of things the company has mentioned worked for them. its something else has driven the satisfaction. so this attacks the conclusion. 
 D that means marketing campagin worked. it rather strengthen it. 
 E even it were minor difference, it still make difference in their claim. so this doesnt necessarily weaken it.

empirekid1301 · Answer

I dont get the explanations here ,if customers were not aware of an ingredients change that dosnt mean that the increase in satisfaction didnt come from the ingredients,for example lets say sprite changes up what it uses for its sweetner from corn syrup to more natural cane sugar , you feel it tastes a bit better its just one ingredient so its not really a drastic enough change to make you realise there is a change in ingredients , now would you say the Increased satisfaction is not from the ingredient change?

guddo · Answer

If most customers were  unaware  of any ingredient or formula change, then the company’s story has a big gap: the claimed cause has no clear way to drive higher satisfaction for most people.

Yes, your Sprite scenario is possible if people taste a difference but do not know why. But (C) says they were unaware of the change itself, which makes it much less plausible that the satisfaction jump came from the change, especially the  natural ingredients  part, because that benefit usually works through customers recognizing (or at least experiencing) the change.

egmat · Answer

Your Sprite example is actually  perfect  for understanding why  C  is correct!

Let's use your own example: 
If Sprite switches from corn syrup to cane sugar and it  actually tastes better , what happens? You  would notice something  - "Hey, this tastes better!" You might not know  why , but you'd  feel the difference .

Common mistake:  Reading "unaware of changes" as "didn't read the press release about new ingredients."

Correct reading:  "Unaware of changes" means customers  couldn't perceive any difference  in the product itself.

Think about it this way: 
Choice C tells us customers were "unaware of the  specific changes  made to the product's ingredients or formula." This means when they drank the new product, they  couldn't tell anything was different .

The logic: 
- Company claims: Formula change → Increased satisfaction
- Choice C establishes: Customers can't perceive any change
-  Therefore:  If you can't tell anything changed, the change  cannot  be what's making you happier!

This applies to BOTH conscious AND unconscious mechanisms.  Your Sprite example works when there's a  perceptible  improvement (even if you can't identify the cause). But if customers are completely unaware of any changes, there's  no perceptible improvement  to attribute to the formula.

Bottom line:  If the natural ingredients and revamped formula made a real difference, customers would  notice something  - even without knowing the technical details. Choice C says they noticed  nothing . So the satisfaction increase must come from something  else entirely .

Answer: C

agrasan · Answer

Hi  egmat

B) Competitor companies also experienced a rise in customer satisfaction during the same period, despite not making similar changes to their product formulas.

Can we reject (B) on the basis of reasoning that the argument is strictly about what caused change in the company's customers satisfaction and not about competitors?

In a recent marketing campaign, a beverage company claimed that 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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In a recent marketing campaign, a beverage company claimed that 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