A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for

Question

A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

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

(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.

(B) Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.

(C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.

(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.

(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.

ID: 100890

peanuts · Answer

A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

Premise 1: Last year, Dietz sold 12m cans of tuna compared to 10m the previous year
Premise 2: profit from the sales was less than cost of advertising 
 Conclusion: Advertising does nothing in terms of economic interest for Dietz

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

To weaken this argument, we should find the answer that prove that even with the profit smaller than the cost, the campaign still bring economic benefit to Dietz

(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.  So what? We don't care how much the canned tuna accounted for in the total profit of Dietz

(B) Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.  It means that even with the ad, new customers are just loyal customer already, so the ad did almost nothing to attract new customer

(C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.  So the ad effect will be down, just because the investment in the ad is not enough

(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.  So what? We care about effect of the ad

(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.  Oh yes. Even in the general trend of decline in sales of canned tuna, the ad helped to increase customer of Dietz to its tuna. It clearly furthers the economic interest of the company

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Premise:
Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign.
Conclusion:
The campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer must show that the campaign DID somehow further Dietz's economic interests.

E:  In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna .
While the rest of the industry suffered a steep DECLINE in sales, the campaign enabled Dietz to INCREASE its sales.
Implication:
Because of the campaign, Dietz avoided the steep decline in sales suffered by the rest of the industry -- a clear furtherance of the company's economic interests.

E

KumarMohan · Answer

I gone though all the replies mentioned in the quetions and no one seems to be talking about B.

In option B "Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of   other   Dietz products."

From this we can say that since these are loyal customer who previously did not buy canned tuna (reason for which may be anything) but now this year because of campaign they have brought it so going forward they are expected to buy canned tuna even when there is no compaign because they are loyal to the company.

Can someone pls help me understand flow in this reasoning..

Thanks in advance for your help

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Since the correct answer must WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate any answer choice that could serve to strengthen it.
B:  Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products. 
Here, most of the first-time buyers of tuna were already loyal customers of Dietz Foods, implying that the company's customer base did not significantly increase as a result of the ad campaign -- information that could serve to STRENGTHEN the conclusion that the campaign did not further the company's economic interests.
Eliminate B.

GMATNinja · Answer

You’re right that our previous post should say that “the cost of last year’s ad campaign  exceeded  the additional profits created by the ad campaign last year” rather than “ did not exceed .”

Regarding (C), the author concludes that the ad campaign did not further the company’s economic interests because costs exceeded profits. If a cheaper ad campaign would lead to fewer sales, then a cheaper ad campaign  may  not be preferable. But this does nothing to prove that the actual ad campaign was economically beneficial. The ad campaign’s costs still exceeded the profits from additional sales.

In other words, simply pointing out that an alternative course of action (a less expensive ad campaign) produces a less desirable outcome (fewer new customers) does not necessarily mean that the original course of action (the actual ad campaign) produces a desirable outcome (furthering Dietz’s economic interests). For that reason, (C) does not weaken the argument, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

bahruz1992 · Answer

Thank you very much for explanation. Can we interpret answer (B) in this way: We know that Dietz has some loyal customer base that until now purchased some different products of the Company again and again. We know that those customers are loyal and, as answer (B) implies they purchased the canned tuna first time. As those customer base is loyal, it would be correct to assume that those loyal customers will buy canned tuna in upcoming years. As a results, in upcoming years, ad campaigns will have a positive impact on the Dietz's sales. SO, answer (B) weakens the conclusion.

GMATNinja · Answer

It’s probably a bit of a stretch to conclude that, because Dietz’s customers were loyal purchasers of other products, they will be loyal purchasers of the canned tuna as well. But even if we could find a situation in which (B) would weaken the argument, it still would not be the best answer choice.

As we laid out in  our explanation above , it’s definitely possible that (B) strengthens the argument. And when an answer choice could strengthen or could weaken an argument depending on the circumstances, it’s definitely not a serious weakener. So we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

GMATE1 · Answer

I had the same thought. From B we know that the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products. Due to the fact that these customers are loyal to other Dietz products it seems not far fetched that these customers will also be likely to Diet's canned tunna. This would mean that the campaign expenses could be attributed not only to the 2 million additional tuna cans sold but also to many more millions of tuna cans sold in the following years by these concumers.

Therefore I believe that B weakens the argument most, because it seems that the campaign attracted loyal customers which are likely to become repeat customers. And while on a one-year perspective there might not have been an economic gains over multiple years the repeat purchases should outweight the cost of the campaign.

To me this question seems flawed, as it fails to specify the time frame, which we are supposed to use. If we are only looking at a narrow time frame E would be the better choice but on a more long term view B seems better, as repeat customers of a product are a lot more important than customers, who only purchase an item once.

What bothers me about this explanations is the following: The entire argument relies on the assumption that because there was an industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna it was likely that Dietz's sales would have decreased this year without the campaign. This argument is flawed for 2 reasons: 1 past behaviour does not predict future behaviour (at least it does not have to). It is possible that sales will decrease again this year for the same reason they did in the past, but without knowing the reason for the decline we will not know whether they will decrease again. 2. Only because the market for canned tuna decreased during the past 5 years does not mean that Dietz's sales have decreased or will decrease. For example cars sales declined in 2020 but Teslas car sales increased. (There are countless other examples inwhich there is a decrease in sales industry wide but individual companies grow their sales.) The reason for this is that industry wide sales are the total sales of an industry but we are concerned with the toal sales not of an industry but a specific company.

Tanchat · Answer

GMATNinja I have 2 questions 1) "Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests." << What does this mean? Can we interpret that campaign could make "positive or negative" impact on economic interests? or does it have to be positive impact or it can be either. 2) I think (E) could strength or could weaken an argument too. - > Although industry wide decline in sales of canned tuna, Dietz may make profits from doing nothing more than profits from doing campaign. or - > If Dietz didn't create the campaign, Dietz may lost more profits.

GMATNinja · Answer

To answer your first question: "furthering" one's economic interests means having a  positive  impact on those interests. The author argues that the tuna campaign did  not  further Dietz' economic interests -- in other words, the author thinks that the campaign did not have a positive impact on Dietz.

To answer your second question: I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, and it seems that both of those explanations suggest that the campaign had a positive impact on Dietz Food. For a full explanation of (E), check out  this post  and let us know if you have any further questions.

Tanchat · Answer

GMATNinja

I already read your full explanation of E, but I'm still doubtful

the reason I asked question 1 because I wanted to know that we are asked whether the campaign just makes an impact (either negative or positive) or (must) positive impact.
The 2nd question : what if Dietz didn't create campaign, Dietz might lost revenue and profit, but the profit from doing nothing might be higher than the profit from creating campaign. Therefore, the campaign made the negative impact on Dietz's econ. Therefore, this scenario strengthens the conclusion.

GMATNinja · Answer

The author concludes that "the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests." In other words, the author thinks the campaign failed to have a  positive  impact on "Dietz's economic interests." But how do they reach this conclusion?

Well, the passage points out that the "profits from additional sales" were "substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign."

As you say, we don't know what would have happened if Dietz didn't create the campaign. Their profits might have been lower, or they might have been higher -- we simply don't know. But either way, the right answer should weaken the author's conclusion that the campaign "did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests."

Let's now consider (E):

If there was an "industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna," you'd expect Dietz to have sold fewer cans of tuna last year than the year before. But in fact, Dietz sold 2 million more cans of tuna last year. So despite the industry-wide decline, Dietz managed to sell even more tuna than usual. What could account for this?

Well, one explanation is that the advertising campaign caused Dietz to sell more tuna despite an industry-wide decline. And if that's the case, the advertising campaign did "further" its economic interests. So (E) weakens the argument that the campaign "did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests."

You're correct that we really don't know what would have happened if Dietz didn't create the campaign - their profits might have been smaller, or they might have been bigger. So (E) certainly doesn't PROVE that the campaign furthered Dietz's economic interests. However, it does provide evidence to  suggest  the campaign increased Dietz's sales of tuna. Because when they ran the campaign, they sold more tuna than usual despite an industry-wide decline.

So while (E) doesn't destroy the argument, it does weaken it, which makes it correct.

I hope that helps!

AcceleratorCC · Answer

I have the same question. Can any expert kindly help me?

"Most of the people who bought Dietz???s canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products".
For me, B weakens the argument because of the following reasoning.
1. The people were loyal customers of other Dietz products, but they didn't buy Dietz's canned tuna before, might because they didn't get a chance to know this product well in the past.
2. They bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time after the campaign. Their purchases caused 2 million additional sales last year, though the profits were less than the costs of campaign.
3. They were loyal customers of Dietz who got to know and bought the canned tuna for the first time, so they are very likely to buy more Dietz canned tuna in the future and bring much more additional profits than the 2 million in the year of campaign.

So in the long run, the profits will outweigh the cost of the campaign. B weakens the argument.

GMATNinja · Answer

The passage tells us that Dietz lost money last year on the advertising campaign, despite attracting more customers. The fact that most of these customers were "already loyal customers of other Dietz products," as (B) tells us, doesn't directly impact this evidence. As a result, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that "the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests."
 
As you suggest, we could  speculate  about how the advertising campaign will impact Dietz's profits in the future. But to draw any definite conclusions about the future would requires big assumptions.

For example, the following are just a few of the assumptions we'd need to make for (B) to weaken the argument:

The new customers will continue to buy tuna at similar levels in future years, even without an advertising campaign 
 The amount of tuna sold in the future will outweigh the amount spent on the advertising campaign 
 Dietz will not encounter any competition that seriously reduces its sales of tuna in the future 
 Dietz continues to sell tuna in future years

In other words, for (B) to weaken the argument, we'd need to assume many things about the future. Since we can't make those assumptions, (B) on its own doesn't weaken the argument.

I hope that helps!

Jayam12 · Answer

GMATNinja

I still didn't understand one thing .Why is D wrong? This is how I understood D as. We are talking about profits being less than the cost of running the campaign. So for example Revenue is 2x (revenue from sales of additional goods) and cost of running the campaign is 1.5x, then the profit is 0.5x. Obviously 0.5x>1.5x. But what I would consider is the fact that the company made additional profit. Isn't that an economic interest sufficient enough, in favour of Dietz's Foods?

Hence I choose D. It tells us that the company made money (as in profits) out of its sales last year.

Where am I going wrong exactly? Can you please help me out

Hence I choose D. It tells us that the company made money (as in profits) out of its sales last year.

Where am I going wrong exactly? Can you please help me out

egmat · Answer

Let me try to help.

While you have interpreted the choice well, it seems you did not check for one of the essential characteristics of a weakener:   A correct weakener has to bring in a new piece of information.

Since the passage already states that the company made profits from the additional sales,  choice D does not bring in any new information . Hence, it cannot be a correct weakener.

Hope that helps,
Happy learning!

Ishan2001 · Answer

If the campaign was only launched last year and the previous year is where 10 million was sold, how can you conclude that if it wasn't for the campaign sales would've been lesser than 10 million? The campaign was only launched after the 10 million was sold.

GMATNinja · Answer

We don't know for sure what would have happened. But if (E) is true, then we do know that there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the past five years. That statistic includes last year (the year in which Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna). If all we knew was that (1) there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna last year and (2) Dietz sold 10 million cans of tuna the previous year, we'd expect sales last year to be LESS than 10 million. Again, we have no way of KNOWING what would have happened, but, if (E) is true, then the available evidence would suggest that Dietz sold fewer than 10 million cans last year. But they actually sold 12 million, which is reason to belief that the ad campaign actually did help. For more on that, check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-year-ago-d ... l#p3004433. A full explanation of this question can be found here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-year-ago-d ... l#p1941975.

Sriesh · Answer

Hi
I understand why option E is correct. Can anyone explain why option A is wrong?

SO Dietz Foods launched a campaign for canned tuna, and canned tuna make up for a very small percentage of the whole company's profit, so this means that it could be possible that the advertisments helped spread Dietz name and helped the sale of other products.

I mean if Company A advertises for its Ice cream, it may have an effect on its beverages as well, no?

Woud really appreciate some help here

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  Sriesh  let me help

Well you raised a valid point, and question asked to weaken an argument where the conclusions say the advertising did nothing in dietz economic interests.

Option A tells us canned tuna sales is just 2 or 3% of dietz foods profits. Well its fine this option just talks about its contribution in profits but we can't derive how this option is making us believe less in conclusion that advertising did nothing. Also we are not concerned about how other devision of dietz foods is affecting the sales, we are judging advertisement for canned tuna

Hope this helps

A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

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

(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.

A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for

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

A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for

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