Hah, wasn't too sure about the word REBATE in this passage, but still managed to solve it in 1:15. Effectively what we're told is that using a product more frequently does not increase its effectiveness and therefore giving a rebate (to existing customers) will not increase sales. The idea is that even a loyal customer will only ever be able to use a maximum of 5 drops a day, so there is nothing more to be gained except a loss in profits by giving money back. But what if giving a rebate (which is effectively a discount) brought in new purchasers? Those who didn't buy before because it was too expensive perhaps?
Grow-Again ointment is a proven treatment for reversing male hereditary baldness. Five drops daily is the recommended dose, and exceeding this quantity does not increase the product’s effectiveness. Therefore, offering a manufacturer’s rebate on the purchase price of Grow-Again will not increase sales and consequently would be unprofitable for the manufacturer.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(A) When using an ointment, people tend to believe that applying it in greater quantities can make it more effective.
The passage says that 5 drops is the daily usage and using anymore doesn't help. This contradicts the passage and is therefore eliminated.
(B) Grow-Again is more effective on some of the men who use it than it is on others.
Irrelevant to the argument about whether the rebate will be an unprofitable course of action.
(C) The rebate, if offered, would not attract purchasers who otherwise might not use Grow-Again.
Bingo. Exactly what we're looking for. More purchases, more sales, more profit possibility.
(D) Baldness in men can be caused by a variety of factors, only one of which is heredity.
Irrelevant to the rebate-profitability issue.
(E) Grow-Again is a product whose per-unit manufacturing cost does not fall significantly when the product is produced in large quantities.
Some Kudos would be nice! Seems I need to be Platinum to get the reward I want!