"Marketing consultant: Last year I predicted that LRG's latest advert

Question

Marketing consultant: Last year I predicted that LRG's latest advertising campaign would be unpopular with customers and ineffective in promoting new products. But LRG ignored my predictions and took the advice of a competing consultant. This season's sales figures show that sales are down and LRG's new products are selling especially poorly. Thus, the advertising campaign was ill-conceived.

The marketing consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

The marketing consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(A) it takes for granted that LRG's sales would not have been lower still in the absence of the competitor's advertising campaign

(B) it fails to consider that economic factors unrelated to the advertising campaign may have caused LRG's low sales figures

(C) it takes for granted that in LRG's industry, new products should outsell established products

(D) it takes for granted that the higher sales of established products are due to effective advertising

(E) it confuses a condition necessary for increasing product sales with a condition that will ensure increased sales

LSAT

sumit411 · Answer

Will go for B

It is a casual argument.

AD campaign - - - - > poor sales.

Author assume that just because 2 things exist together, one thing led to other. He assumes that their is no alternate cause of the effect.

B hits the nail on the head.

A--> if this were true, campaign would have been treated positive and not negative.

C---> no such comparison

D--->no such assumption is made

E----> This is not conditional statement. This is casual argument

Thank you = Kudos

TaN1213 · Answer

Can someone elaborate on A, B and E.
All these seem valid to me. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.

AshutoshB · Answer

HI I m no expert, A is Wrong as it talks about "competitor's advertising campaign" there is only one advertisement claim, though there is Competing consultant but there is no competitors claim

E is wrong: there is no causal relation

TaN1213 · Answer

Hello Expert,

Would you please assist in my query posted in the discussion?
Thank you.

shauryahanda · Answer

Option A is wrong cause it talks about competitor's campaign
B- ans
C - the loss in sale can b caused irrespective of the fact that it outsells other products or not

You can easily negate D and E either from thinking about it from venn diagram way or Causal Relationsip

An easier way would be generally see when we are talking about failure while options are about success they will be representing logic errors due to negation(mind you generally)

So in order to solve this que in 1:30 -> see B , mark , and move

mSKR · Answer

What consultant says: 
AC would be INEFFECTIVE for NEW PRODUCTS
It was found ineffective . Thus campaign was ILL-CONCEIVED.

When I was thinking what could be the reason?
The first thought came in my mind was : Maybe consultant didn’t consider all factors. It maybe possible that some other factors maybe responsible for poor sales.

Reject 1: I need to focus on why sales were Lower. Not focus on why they were not lower.
Reject2: consultant already said the sales would be poor. Even if no compeititor’s campaign , still are expected to be poor . So why not lower in absence of competitor advettising campaign? It doesn’t make sense
I am convinced to reject option A

The option makes it specific to economic factors. If it were mentioned “other factors” , I would have been convinced instantly. But because only economic reason is mentioned. But it is subset of factors that I considered during my prethinking. I may not rject it now. I would like to keep it on hold for now.

new products should outsell established products ?
Easy reject: I only focus on new products. Outsell or underperform is out of scope discussion.

Just lucky, because they again mentioned about established products. If it were mentioned new products, I would have been confused.
Easy reject for now

These wordings sounds like correct answer. But what does it exactly say?
Necessary condition doesn’t mean it would ensure sales. But I need to find reverse logic. 
- We are looking reasons for poor sales
- Maybe we missed some condition into consideration
I am comfortable in rejecting E now.

I need to find an option  most vulnerable to criticism. 
I didn’t find any other option as close as B

Hence B is my marked answer.

CEdward · Answer

I see why A) is wrong...totally missed the fact that no 'competitor's campaign' was mentioned.
What is E trying to say though?

unraveled · Answer

Marketing consultant: Last year I predicted that LRG's latest advertising campaign would be unpopular with customers and ineffective in promoting new products. But LRG ignored my predictions and took the advice of a competing consultant. This season's sales figures show that sales are down and LRG's new products are selling especially poorly. Thus, the advertising campaign was ill-conceived.

The marketing consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

The marketing consultant's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(A) it takes for granted that LRG's  sales would not have been lower  still in the absence of the competitor's advertising campaign - WRONG. Reverse case is not necessarily true.

(B) it fails to consider that  economic factors unrelated to the advertising campaign may have caused  LRG's low sales figures - CORRECT. External factors were not considered.

(C) it takes for granted that in LRG's industry, new products  should outsell  established products - WRONG. Irrelevant as far as scope is concerned.

(D) it takes for granted that the  higher sales of established products  are due to effective advertising - WRONG. Irrelevant due to scope shift.

(E) it  confuses  a  condition necessary  for increasing product sales  with a condition that will ensure increased sales  - WRONG. Both are wrong. There is no claim that increased sales are a surety.

Only A and B stand a chance and A loses out due to wrong inference that it might be suggesting to make.

Answer B.

Paras96 · Answer

The marketing consultant argues that the advertising campaign was ill-conceived because sales are down and LRG's new products are selling poorly. To criticize this reasoning, we need to find a flaw in the consultant's argument. Let's evaluate the options:

(A) it takes for granted that LRG's sales would not have been lower still in the absence of the competitor's advertising campaign.
 - This option suggests that the consultant assumes that the competitor's advertising campaign is solely responsible for the lower sales. However, the argument does not explicitly make this assumption; it focuses on the negative impact of the campaign but does not consider other factors.

(B) it fails to consider that economic factors unrelated to the advertising campaign may have caused LRG's low sales figures. 
 - This option points out a potential flaw in the argument. It suggests that there could be economic factors beyond the advertising campaign that have contributed to the low sales figures. This challenges the consultant's conclusion.

(C) it takes for granted that in LRG's industry, new products should outsell established products.
 - This option is not a direct criticism of the consultant's reasoning. The consultant's argument focuses on the impact of the advertising campaign and the poor sales of new products, not the industry norms.

(D) it takes for granted that the higher sales of established products are due to effective advertising.
 - This option questions the assumption that effective advertising is solely responsible for higher sales of established products. While it may indirectly challenge part of the argument, it doesn't directly address the flaw in the consultant's reasoning.

(E) it confuses a condition necessary for increasing product sales with a condition that will ensure increased sales.
 - This option points out a potential flaw in the consultant's reasoning. The consultant seems to assume that if the advertising campaign is ill-conceived, it will automatically lead to lower sales. This oversimplification is challenged by this option.

Option (B) is the most directly relevant to the flaw in the consultant's argument. It suggests that the consultant fails to consider other economic factors that could have contributed to the low sales figures, which weakens the argument's causal link between the advertising campaign and poor sales. Therefore, option (B) is the correct choice.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

"Marketing consultant: Last year I predicted that LRG's latest advert

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

"Marketing consultant: Last year I predicted that LRG's latest advert

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