Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling sever

Understand the Passage

Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers’ lines of pet-care products.Vets derive some income from selling pet-care products.

Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from their pet’s veterinarian unread, one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients.The manufacturers (of pet-care products) know that pet owners always read the vets’ mails. So, one manufacturer offered free promotional material to vets to be mailed to the vets’ clients.

Very few veterinarians accepted the offer, however, even though the manufacturer’s products are of high quality.However, very few vets accepted the offer even though the manufacturer’s products are of high quality. (When you read ‘however’, you should try to understand why it’s there. Given that this statement says very few vets accepted the offer and starts with a ‘however’, the earlier statements must have led to a scenario in which it made sense to expect vets to accept the offer. And that is indeed so. Vets derive some income from selling pet-care products, so it made sense that they would offer promotional pet-care products to their customers because such promotional material might increase their sales of pet-care products.)

Predict an Answer

This question is a paradox question. The passage presents a paradox i.e. a set of situations that seem contradictory. We need to find an option that explain why vets did not accept the manufacturer’s offer even though manufacturer’s products are good and giving such promotional material might have helped vets in increasing their income by selling more pet-care products.

Any option suggesting that providing the manufacturer’s products to the clients may not be in the overall interests of the vets can be an answer. For example: the manufacturer may be providing the lowest profit margins (among all other competitive products) on its products to the vets. In such a case, a boost in the sales of this manufacturer’s products may reduce the overall profits or income of the vets.

Option Analysis

(A) Incorrect. If the vets were already selling the manufacturer’s products, they should rather be willing to distribute the promotional materials of the manufacturer since if more products are sold because of promotions, the vets will be directly benefitted through increase in sales. This option, rather than resolving the paradox, widens the paradox.

(B) Incorrect. This option also widens the paradox to a small extent. If the promotional materials were a replacement of the manufacturer’s usual promotional activities, then we might have some reason (very small though) for the rejection of the promotional materials since the vets may prefer the usual promotional activities over the promotional materials. However, the given option says that promotional materials are just a supplement to the existing promotional activities. In such a case, there is no reason to expect the vets to reject the promotional materials.

(C) Correct. The option provides a reason why it may not be in the economic interests of the vets to offer promotional materials of the manufacturer to their clients. The option says two things:

1. The manufacturer’s products are available with both vets and stores and supermarkets.
2. Other equally good competing products are only available with vets.

In such a case, if the customers switch from other equally good competing products to the manufacturer’s products (because of the promotional materials), the income of the vets may go down since the decrease in the sales of other competing products may not be compensated by the increase in sales of the manufacturer’s products. This is because not all clients may buy manufacturer’s products from the vets. Some may go to pet stores or supermarkets. In case of other competing products, the clients had to buy the products from the vets since the products were not available elsewhere.

(D) Incorrect. We are already given that the manufacturer’s products are of high quality. There is no reason to expect that the products do not match the standards people have for pet products. Thus, this option does not help explain why the vets’ reaction to the promotional scheme.

(E) Incorrect. This option talks about a scenario that is completely irrelevant to the given passage. The scenario is when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available. This scenario is not relevant to the given passage. Thus, what vets do in such a scenario is not going to be relevant to the passage.

Why is A incorrect ?

As explained in this post by CrackVerbalGMAT, if most of those veterinarians were already selling the products to their clients, they would WANT to accept and mail the free promotional materials. The first sentence of the passage tells us that veterinarians generally derive some of their income from sales of such products. Sending out free promotional materials might boost sales of those products and, thus, increase the veterinarians' income.

Hi GMATNinja egmat and experts
I would be really grateful if you could help.

As per the above mentioned explanations, I do understand that "C" is the best answer available BUT from more generalized point of view, is it not wrong to associate assumptions with the options, just as we are doing in this case with "C". for e.g. we are assuming here that (1) people prefer going to pet stores and supermarkets to veterinarians (2) promotional materials are distributed at all levels to attract people (3) even if promotional materials are distributed at all levels, customers would be encouraged to buy it from stores and supermarkets rather than to buy products from veterinarians.

Thanks

To conclude that (C) is the correct answer choice, we do not need to assume that people actually WOULD go to other stores rather than buy the products at the veterinary clinic -- we only need to show that this is a possibility that COULD occur, and that therefore (C) provides information that most helps to explain the vets' reaction.

Using POE for the other answer choices (which can be found in the OE and in this post by @CrackVerbalGMAT), it is clear that (C) is the only option that offers a potentially valid reason for veterinarians to refuse the promotional materials. So, we can say that (C) "most helps explain the veterinarians' reaction," even if it is not absolutely certain that people prefer to purchase the products at a pet store.

I hope that helps!

Hi - I interpreted option A as below. Can you help me with where my understanding is incorrect?

(A) Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer's pet-care products to their clients. - If they are already selling the products then why would they want to send free products to clients? Wouldnt this reduce sales?

Also, why is (B) Incorrect?
Supplement to current promotions would mean more discounts on top of ongoing discounts.
So it will reduce the Vet's income (since now he will be selling products at an extra discount).
Wouldn't this be a reason for the Vets to refuse the promotional material?

Free "promotional materials" are not necessarily free products -- promotional materials can be informational pamphlets, pens with the manufacturer's brand name on them, or something else along those lines. Because we do not know the exact nature of the materials, we can't assume that they are free products.


Kind of like in the above discussion of (A), we can't assume that the "promotional activities" in (B) are discounts. Promotional activities could really be anything -- regular batches of junk mail, door-to-door sales pitches, radio/television commercials, charity sponsorship... again, we can't assume that the promotional activities in (B) are discounts or that the special promotional materials will reduce the vet's income.

I hope that helps!

FACT 1: One manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials for its products, which are of high quality.
FACT 2: Very few veterinarians accepted the offer.

How can both facts be true at the same time?
There must be a DOWNSIDE to the offer -- a downside that would hurt the veterinarians.
Only C gives a clear downside:
The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.
Implication:
The promotional materials might induce pet owners to purchase the promoted products from pet stores and supermarkets -- a clear downside, since veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers' lines of pet-care products.

I don't understand why C is the right answer.

Maybe I don't get what they mean by "promotional materials"?

If (C) is the case, potential customers will figure out there's other places like supermarkets that sell the same products. but the offer made by vets is more appealing since they offer promotional materials. so even if the customers know other places to buy the same products, why not buy from vets? Buying the same product at supermarkets or other stores seems irrational when they know the vet's deal is better. So there's no reason for vets to reject the offer.

What am i missing?

The statement in red is not supported by the passage.
Passage: Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from their pet's veterinarian unread, one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients.
The promotional materials are to be MAILED to the clients.
Nothing in the passage indicates that -- after receiving the promotional materials -- a client will get a better deal at the vet than at the local supermarket.
As a result, a client swayed by the mailed promotional materials could choose to buy the advertised pet products at the local supermarket rather than at the vet -- a clear downside, from the perspective of the vet.

So the competitors here were A and C. I had a sneaking suspicion that the answer wasn't A which is what I chose. But, after reading the responses it seems to me that others in the board are making an implicit assumption that the promotional materials would indicate that the products are sold at other locations. Is that correct? Is that even a fair assumption to be making? I fail to see how this would resolve the paradox otherwise unless we accept that.

pushpitkc

GMATGuruNY

A: Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer's pet-care products to their clients.
Here, we know only that the products are sold by vets.
There is no indication that the products are sold elsewhere.
As a result, option A gives vets a clear reason to ACCEPT the offer from the manufacturer, since the promotional materials would serve as FREE ADVERTISING for products that the vets are selling.
Nothing in A explains why vets chose not to accept the manufacturer's offer.
Eliminate A.

(C) The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.
Here, the manufacturer's products are sold not only by vets but also by COMPETITORS (pet stores and supermarkets).
As a result, the promotional materials could serve to increase sales not for the vets but for COMPETITORS.
This information explains why vets chose not to accept the manufacturer's offer.

Hi guys, I am wondering if there is some ambiguity here. When I read the question, I understood the promotional materials as serving the role of promoting the products for sale in the vet's store. Is that tenable?

The passage specifies that "one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients."

Here, the pronoun "its" refers back to the noun "one manufacturer." So, we know that the materials are promoting that manufacturer's products.

The passage tells us that veterinarians sell products from "several manufacturers," but we don't know exactly where the one manufacturer offer its items.

(C) closes that gap:

The "one manufacturer" mentioned in the passage sells items both at veterinarian shops AND in pet stores/supermarkets.

This explains the vets' reluctance to send out the free materials. If the products were sold ONLY at the veterinarian, then perhaps the free materials would draw customers in and the vet would make an additional profit. Because the products are sold at pet stores and supermarkets, however, the vet risks LOSING profit by sending out the materials.

(C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Respected GMATNinja,

I have a doubt regarding option C:

The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.

1. Even if the vets don't send the promotional mail, the sale of that particular product at pet stores and supermarkets does not get stopped. So people can still go to other places rather than to the vets for buying that product. How does it help the case?

2. If the vets DO send the promotional mail for the products that are also in pet stores and supermarkets, it is not necessary that the sale for vets will go down. People will choose where they want to buy and atleast some people who will decide to buy from vet will come to the vet for buying that product.

I am coming back to this question after 2 months or so but still this option does not make sense to me completely as the correct answer that explains the vet's decision appropriately.

As we explained in this post, we don't need an answer that 100% PROVES that sending the promotional materials is a terrible idea. Instead, we just need to choose the option that "most helps to explain the veterinarian's reaction."

(C) provides us with an explanation. Vets make money by selling pet-care products from various manufacturers. (C) tells us that MOST of these manufacturers ONLY sell their items in vet offices. This particular manufacturer, on the other hand, sells their products elsewhere as well.

If I was a vet and was choosing whether to spend some time sending out promotional materials, this would certainly influence my decision. Given the information in (C), I would be less inclined to mail out materials from this particular manufacturer.

So, even if (C) doesn't provide a full, air-tight explanation of the vets' reactions, it does provide some information to explain their decision.

None of the other answer choices provide an explanation at all, so (C) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

Solution

Passage Analysis

• Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers' lines of pet-care products.
o A part of the income of veterinarians in general are from selling pet care products from many manufacturer’s lines.
• Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from their pet's veterinarian unread,
o A manufacturer of pet-care products knows that pet owners seldom throw away their pet’s veterinarian’s mail unread. (i.e. they read it)
• one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients.
o So, they offered free advertising materials to veterinarians for mailing to their clients.
• Very few veterinarians accepted the offer, however, even though the manufacturer's products are of high quality.
o The offered products are of high quality.
o But not many veterinarians took the offer.

Question Stem Analysis
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the veterinarian's reaction to the manufacturer's promotional scheme?
Even though high-quality materials are offered, veterinarians did not accept the offer. We need to resolve the paradox here.

Prethinking

We need to find some reason that will make the veterinarians reject the offer even though the offered materials were of high quality.
One reason could be that mails are sent only for important purposes and as doctors, the veterinarians stayed away from sending promotional materials/mails in general.
Another reason may be that even though the promotion is done through veterinarians, the product is sold through other channels, thus not benefitting the veterinarians.
With this prethinking in mind, let us check the answer choices.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer's pet-care products to their clients.
INCORRECT
If this statement is true, then the vets will benefit from advertising that manufacturer. This worsens the paradox.

(B) The special promotional materials were intended as a supplement to the manufacturer's usual promotional activities rather than as a replacement for them.
INCORRECT
Whether the materials are a supplement or a replacement for the manufacturer does not impact the veterinarian’s behaviour. Therefore, this is an incorrect answer choice.

(C) The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.
CORRECT
If the veterinarians advertise these products through mail, chances are that the pet owners purchase these products from nearby stores, unlike the other products advertised by the vets. Hence, they will not receive the good effect of the promotion. Therefore, this is a valid reason for the behaviour.

(D) Many pet owners have begun demanding quality in products they buy for their pets that is as high as that in products they buy for themselves.
INCORRECT
The promotional materials are of high quality as stated; hence this option aggravates the paradox.

(E) Veterinarians sometimes recommend that pet owners use products formulated for people when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available.
INCORRECT
This option has nothing to do with the stated paradox. It is completely out of scope.

Hello experts,
first of all please help me to understand a part of this argument.
So,the manufacturer gave free promotional material or products or both were free,
I think the promo materials were free; what kind of materials are they? are they kind of promo codes?
lets say the manufecturer gave free promo codes to email them to vet's customers,
I am assuming that a customer will put these codes on website and will buy online; which is hectic, and C makes sense; coz he can buy directly through supermarket.
but, still what if there is significant discount trough these promo codes!
I will buy through promo codes, anyone will
so, my point is we dont know what kind of promotional material is it? is it just an advertisement or an offer?

Now in B
seems perfect to me,
the promotional activity was unusaul and wasn't that good; so rather than replacing it,
manufecturer is still providing that promotional material!

could be the reason that most of vats rejected this offer coz the promotional material wasn't replaced!
why its wrong?