Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in

Question

Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is doomed to failure. It will certainly cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

Sales analyst: Actually, marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

Which of the following is the most serious criticism of the sales analyst's argument?

(A) The sales analyst does not refer to any specific statistics.

(B) The sales analyst does not specifically refer to Brand X dog food.

(C) The sales analyst's argument is based on outmoded ideas of causality.

(D) The sales analyst refers to how many varieties of meat are in a dog food rather than to the decrease in the number of varieties of meat in the dog food.

(E) The sales analyst presents her evidence in a manner designed to disprove any relationship between ingredients and dog food sales.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

dhart · Answer

(A) The sales analyst does not refer to any specific statistics.
 statistics presentation would be good , but since it has not been done , we can't evaluate this option 
 
(B) The sales analyst does not specifically refer to Brand X dog food.
 Since, int the argument lies between company spokesperson and sales analyst , the product in question must be Brand X

(C) The sales analyst's argument is based on outmoded ideas of causality.
 The analyst arguemnt is a little old fashioned type & it can be a bit weakener.

(D) The sales analyst refers to how many varieties of meat are in a dog food rather than to the decrease in the number of varieties of meat in the dog food. 
 The argument is about the decrease in variety of meat products, hence the sales analyst should have given more info on the decrease of ingredient variety in products, so this looks like our answer!

(E) The sales analyst presents her evidence in a manner designed to disprove any relationship between ingredients and dog food sales. 
this sounds too broad !

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. Quoting actual statistics would make the evidence stronger, but it doesn't address the main flaw.
B. The studies don't have to be about Brand X specifically to be relevant.
C. The issue isn't causality. It's that the analyst is answering a different question.
D. The spokesperson is talking about reducing the number of meat varieties. The analyst responds with studies about the overall number of meat varieties across different dog foods. Those aren't the same thing. Looks good keep
E. The analyst isn't making a claim about all ingredients—just the number of meat varieties.

I ll go with D

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer : D

Deconstructing the Argument 
Spokesperson's Claim: Changing Brand X to include fewer varieties of meat will cause sales to drop. (This is a prediction about a dynamic change to an existing product's recipe).

Sales Analyst's Rebuttal:  Marketing studies show no correlation between the number of meat varieties in a dog food and its sales. (This is a static comparison of existing products across the market).

The Core Flaw:  The analyst assumes that because Brand A (with 2 meats) sells as well as Brand B (with 4 meats) across the market, altering Brand X from 4 meats down to 2 meats will have no negative effect. However, existing Brand X customers who expect a specific formula may react negatively when the recipe is downgraded.

Option Analysis 
(A) Incorrect: Failing to cite specific numerical statistics is a minor rhetorical choice, not a fundamental flaw in the analyst's logical reasoning.

(B) Incorrect: Applying broader industry-wide data to a specific brand is standard practice; the real error is applying static industry data to a dynamic change.

(C) Incorrect: "Outmoded ideas of causality" is generic distracter jargon that fails to address the specific gap between static state and dynamic reduction.

(D) CORRECT: Precisely pinpoints the flaw.  The analyst relies on evidence regarding the absolute number of meat varieties in a dog food rather than addressing what happens when a company decreases the varieties in an established dog food.

(E) Incorrect: The analyst is not attempting to disprove all relationships between ingredients and sales; she is focused strictly on meat variety counts.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Conclusion:  The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is not doomed to failure and will not cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

Premise:  Marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

Assumptions:  (1) There’s no other way to interpret the evidence. Because marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food, it is reasonable for the sales analyst to conclude that the plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is not doomed to failure and will not cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

(2) There are no problems with the plan. The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is not doomed to failure and will in fact not cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

The question stem asks Which of the following is the most serious criticism, so this is a flaw question. The argument uses both a planning and an interpretation of evidence reasoning pattern. This can be identified by recognizing that the passage references The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food and that this proposed course of action is expected to work based on the presentation of a specific fact as evidence, in this case that marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

The standard assumption of a planning reasoning pattern is that there are no problems with the plan. The standard assumption of an interpretation of evidence reasoning pattern is that there is no other way to interpret the facts. Because this is a flaw question, the correct answer will demonstrate that the plan will not work or that the evidence has been interpreted incorrectly. In other words, that The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is doomed to failure and it will certainly cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food, or that the marketing studies that show there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food have been incorrectly interpreted as support for the plan. Evaluate the answer choices, looking for a choice that matches one of these ideas.

Choice A: No. This choice cannot be matched to the facts of the argument. Referring to specific statistics from the studies would not affect the efficacy of the plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food.

Choice B: No. This choice cannot be matched to the facts of the argument. Even if The sales analyst does not specifically refer to Brand X dog food, there is no reason to indicate that the studies of other dog foods could not be applied reasonably to Brand X dog food.

Choice C: This choice is out of scope. There is nothing to indicate that The sales analyst’s argument is based on outmoded ideas of causality.

Choice D: Correct. This choice is supported by the argument. That The sales analyst refers to how many varieties of meat are in a dog food rather than to the decrease in the number of varieties of meat in the dog food addresses a shift in language occurring in the sales analyst’s evidence that marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

Choice E: This choice is out of scope. The passage does not indicate that the sales analyst’s argument can be extended to all dog food ingredients.

The correct answer is choice D.

RBiswas03 · Answer

Company Spokesperson(CS)- fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food will result in drop in consumers buying brand X.
SA- No. of varieties of meat in a brand not related to sale of that brand. So technically, the flaw is CS is concerned that reduction in current varieties say from 5 to 3 will lead to drop in sale of Brand X, because consumers were aware of the composition, when the composition is changed the consumers won't like to buy it. 
SA argues that no of varieties doesn't affect sales of the brand. What he/she is not considering is that reduction in the already existing varieties in the brand X. 
So, ans option D mentions that inconsistency in the arguments between the two.

Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in

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

­Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in

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

Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in