Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling sever

The question wants us to find the reason why veterinarian's wouldn't want to send the promotional material. The reason that very few vets wanted to send the material would have to be related to an effort required in sending the material. I was thinking the best option should focus on a staffing issue, or the level of effort wasn't worth sending the material.

A is wrong, if vets were already selling the material promoting it for free would be great.

B means that vets would be inclined to send the material to support the original promotion.

D would entice vets to send the promotional material to their consumers so they would buy the product from them.

E is out of scope, and is never mentioned or hinted it.

C is the most correct because the effort of sending the promotional material wouldn't be worth it if pet owners can buy the product cheaper or at the same price at a supermarket, or pet store.

(A) You applied an extra layer of assumption here. We don't know whether the promotional materials are purely informational, discounts, free samples, totally unrelated things like a pad of branded post-it notes, etc. Maybe there's a discount involved, but the answer choice as written sure doesn't necessitate that.

(C) The answer choice compares this product to other, equally good competing products. If the vet is already selling one or more of those other products and those other products aren't available anywhere other than through the vet, why would the vet want to promote a product that customers could just pick up anywhere? If I have something you can only get from me, I don't want to tell you about a competitor that you can get from somewhere else.
_________________

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.
_________________

Hi Folks! Even though all the experts have explained the answers very well, I would add my 2 cents with some actual scenarios. This passage is an interesting one and a real-life situation that happens in the veterinary medicine world. (My wife is a veterinary pathologist. This question is an apt recreation of her workplace) My

We need to find an answer which will explain why the paradox is happening in the first place - Why is it that vets don't want to market the manufacturer's products to their clients in the mail list?

Let's call the manufacturer of these pet-care products - M Inc

(Trivia: Mars International - The makers of Mar's chocolate - is a leading major in the pet-care industry).

The discussion is concentrated between options A and C, but even option E is interesting. Let's think as a Vet doctor -

Option 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.

This means that we (as vets) already have a deal with M Inc, and we are selling kibbles (Pedigree, Whiskas), dog chews and other pet products.

If this were true, then the vets should have accepted M Inc's offer without fuss; everyone would make money, and everyone is happy (M Inc + Vets). But, this didn't happen. Why did the vets refuse to market M Inc's products? This option doesn't answer the question of Why? Discard it.

Option E -
Veterinarians sometimes recommend that pet owners use products formulated for people when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available.

This part is definitely true in the real world. It is a common occurrence that pets are commonly prescribed human medicines and even baby formulas (Yes, dogs can be safely prescribed Tylenol and puppies are fed Cerelac baby formula). This option is a trap, because we will be using real-world knowledge to answer this question, and it seems like the paradox is resolved.

This option says that - sometimes, the vets are giving non-animal (human) medicines/products to their client's dogs and cats, so it makes sense as a vet to not market M Inc's products. This looks like a strong reason. However, this is a very tactfully crafted option, because - if we don't restrain our real-world knowledge, then we are toast on this question. Discard this option.

Option C -

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

This option means that - Vets are already selling (Nestle Foods (NF) - they make pet foods) products, and NF is a competitor of M Inc. Also, M Inc's products are available in stores and markets. It now makes sense that my income is from NF sales, and M Inc wants me to sell the same products. Will the marketing boost my income? Most likely not!

This explains my hesitation as a vet to decline M Inc's offer.

I hope it helps!
_________________

I did not like any of the 5 choices - i 'settled' with (c) because of canabilization.

why i chose (c).

Lets say one pet-care products being discussed is -- Dog cookies.

As per (c) - you find out

-- veterinarians' dog-cookies ARE NOT AVAILABLE at walmart / target / costco
-- the manufacturers' dog-cookies are available at walmart / target /costco
-- veterinarians' dog-cookies is equally as good as the manufacturer's dog cookies.

So if veterinarians send promo materials (Flyers, coupons, cards, discount flyers) to existing vet customers about Dog Cookies

Wouldnt the customers of veterinarians potentially buy dog cookies NOT from the vet any longer but perhaps buy dog cookies from Walmart /Target /Costo itself.

Hence - this step 'shifts away' people who buy dog cookies from me[the vet].

hence - potential canabilization for my revenues [the vet]

The given scenario describes a situation where a manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials to veterinarians to be mailed to their clients, but very few veterinarians accepted the offer, even though the manufacturer's products are of high quality. We need to find the option that explains why this promotional scheme was not successful.

Option (A) states that most veterinarians were already selling the manufacturer's products to their clients. This suggests that the promotional scheme was not necessary for those veterinarians as they were already familiar with and selling the manufacturer's products. Hence, this option does not explain why the promotional scheme was not successful.

Option (B) suggests that the promotional materials were intended as a supplement to the manufacturer's usual promotional activities, not a replacement for them. This option does not explain why the promotional scheme was not successful.

Option (C) explains that the manufacturer's products are not exclusively available through veterinarians but are also available in pet stores and supermarkets. This suggests that pet owners may choose to buy the products from other sources, which may reduce the incentive for veterinarians to participate in the promotional scheme. Hence, this option provides a plausible explanation for the veterinarian's reaction to the manufacturer's promotional scheme and is the correct answer.

Option (D) suggests that pet owners demand high-quality products for their pets, which may increase the demand for the manufacturer's products. However, this option does not explain why the promotional scheme was not successful.

Option (E) suggests that veterinarians may recommend human products when no suitable product formulated for animals is available. This option does not explain why the promotional scheme was not successful.

Therefore, option (C) is the most helpful in explaining the veterinarian's reaction to the manufacturer's promotional scheme.