• Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep

Dietz foods

This topic has 16 member replies
Goto page
  • 1,
  • 2
Next
sumitkhurana Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
07 Oct 2008
Posted:
107 messages
Test Date:
1st April, 2009
Target GMAT Score:
700+
GMAT Score:
710

Dietz foods

Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:21 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    A year ago, Dietz foods launched a year long advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 millions cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to futher Dietz's economic interests.

    Which one if true, most seriously weakens the argument ?

    1. Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.
    2. Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.
    3. A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Deitz foods launchd last year.
    4. Deitz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.
    4. In each of the past 5 years, there was a steep, industry wide decline in sales of canned tuna.

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    schumi_gmat Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    03 Sep 2008
    Posted:
    377 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    15 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    700+
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:20 pm
    IMO B

    conclusio : Campaign did nothing for the Dietz economic interest.

    Evidence : Sales increased but profits < campaign costs

    In B, If campaign added customers who have become loyal of Dietz foods then campaign has done good for the Dietz and argument is weaken

    sg1928 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    07 Apr 2008
    Posted:
    39 messages
    GMAT Score:
    720
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:42 pm
    schumi_gmat wrote:
    IMO B

    conclusio : Campaign did nothing for the Dietz economic interest.

    Evidence : Sales increased but profits < campaign costs

    In B, If campaign added customers who have become loyal of Dietz foods then campaign has done good for the Dietz and argument is weaken
    IMO 4. "In each of the past 5 years, there was a steep, industry wide decline in sales of canned tuna."

    Inspite of the indusrty wide decline, Dietz has increase in sales. This weakens the argument.

    OA and explanation please.

    hitmewithgmat Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    16 Sep 2008
    Posted:
    189 messages
    Followed by:
    1 members
    Thanked:
    11 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    750
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:52 pm
    IMO is E.

    B seems strengthen the argument. Since most of the customers were the loyal to Dietz food, campaign really did not work out. Besides, we do not know those whether loyal people bought more canned tunas than they used to purchase the canned tuna.

    E seems weaken the argument because people bought more than 2 millions of canned tuna however, the profits were substantially lower (like E described). That's why the profit was not increased.

    Musicolo Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    01 Feb 2009
    Posted:
    116 messages
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:59 pm
    schumi_gmat wrote:
    IMO B

    conclusio : Campaign did nothing for the Dietz economic interest.

    Evidence : Sales increased but profits < campaign costs

    In B, If campaign added customers who have become loyal of Dietz foods then campaign has done good for the Dietz and argument is weaken
    Schumi, I think ur mixing fruits and vegetables.
    I think its the last one.

    schumi_gmat Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    03 Sep 2008
    Posted:
    377 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    15 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    700+
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:46 pm
    I concentrated on the Profits rather than sales.

    If your argument is based on sales then E is correct choice because it is against the trend because of the advertising.


    E does not have any bearing on the profits. Arg says that advertising does not increase profits and hence failed.

    I have realised that B also does not talk about profits. So E might be the best choice.

    cramya Legendary Member Default Avatar
    Joined
    28 Aug 2008
    Posted:
    2469 messages
    Followed by:
    11 members
    Thanked:
    331 times
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:34 pm
    The conclusion is the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests


    Why not C guys?

    A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Deitz foods launchd last year


    More new customers translate to potential(future->further) ecomic interests for Deitz.

    Just my opinion.


    I eliminated B since the passage stated:

    Last year Dietz sold 12 millions cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign.

    B neither refers to campaigns or new customers, hence felt like couldnt weaken the conclusion in any way.

    Choice E

    In each of the past 5 years, there was a steep, industry wide decline in sales of canned tuna

    But we know that Deitz sold 12 million canned tunas compared to 10 million so this choice doesnt affect Deitz. This juts means Deitz should have been more profitable since it got more of the market share provided the prcie stayed the same or increased which we dont know.


    Regards,
    Cramya

    quocbao Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    03 Mar 2009
    Posted:
    88 messages
    Thanked:
    3 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    720
    Post Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:31 pm
    I choose E too. Other choices seem to add extra information.

    naaga Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    15 Dec 2008
    Posted:
    129 messages
    Thanked:
    2 times
    Test Date:
    Jan 2011
    Target GMAT Score:
    780
    Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:54 am
    what is OA sumit ?

    bmlaud Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    08 Jan 2009
    Posted:
    174 messages
    Thanked:
    5 times
    Test Date:
    April 2009
    Target GMAT Score:
    720
    GMAT Score:
    620
    Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:56 am
    IMO E

    same eapl.n as given in earlier posts.

    It cannot be C because it doesn't tell conclusively anything about the expenses for any other advt. and revenues generated as a result of it.

    _________________
    "Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance."

    crossingfingers Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    18 Apr 2007
    Posted:
    23 messages
    Thanked:
    1 times
    Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:06 pm
    guys IMO...I dont agree with E...

    Though there was a steep decline...what if the company retained its market share and the sales of the number of cans of tuna was actually increasing year to year for the past 5 yrs? You just dont know anything abt the sales the first 3 yrs is what I am trying to get to.

    IMO C: - C says 'A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna'...which would have resulted in fewer can - according to the argument

    whats the OA?

    sumitkhurana Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    07 Oct 2008
    Posted:
    107 messages
    Test Date:
    1st April, 2009
    Target GMAT Score:
    700+
    GMAT Score:
    710
    Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:16 pm
    OA is E guys. Explaination - Inspite of the fact that there were steep decline in sales for past 5 years, Dietz did had increased sales. This may actually lead to reversal in industry trend ...

    I did not understand it to be frank !!

    karmayogi Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
    Joined
    06 Nov 2008
    Posted:
    467 messages
    Followed by:
    1 members
    Thanked:
    27 times
    Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:00 pm
    sumitkhurana wrote:
    OA is E guys. Explaination - Inspite of the fact that there were steep decline in sales for past 5 years, Dietz did had increased sales. This may actually lead to reversal in industry trend ...

    I did not understand it to be frank !!
    Important point: Addition of new customer doesn't mean direct increase in sale. What if, total number of customers increased but total number of cans sold reduced. We are looking for increase in the number of cans.

    Option C just talks about bringing new customers, and doesn't talk about increasing the sale or the number of cans.

    Hence, E.

    _________________
    Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divine within.
    --By Swami Vivekananda

    kanha81 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    10 Jan 2009
    Posted:
    431 messages
    Followed by:
    1 members
    Thanked:
    16 times
    Post Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:14 pm
    karmayogi wrote:
    Option C just talks about bringing new customers, and doesn't talk about increasing the sale or the number of cans.

    Hence, E.
    I disagree with the above because the stimulus clearly states that the there was an increase in the sales of canned tuna from 10 to 12 million. So we cannot say the above stated fact.

    However, I do agree with the important point stated below:
    karmayogi wrote:
    Important point: Addition of new customer doesn't mean direct increase in sale. What if, total number of customers increased but total number of cans sold reduced. We are looking for increase in the number of cans.
    I still do not see this an effective away of answering! Can any expert shed more light on this?

    _________________
    Want to Beat GMAT.
    Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT

    mharv Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
    Joined
    13 Oct 2008
    Posted:
    36 messages
    Thanked:
    2 times
    Test Date:
    27-Aug-09
    Target GMAT Score:
    650
    GMAT Score:
    390
    Post Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:53 am
    I am going a little Mad

    A is irrelevant

    B does not weaken the argument, because loyal customers can still increase the sales by just buying more having seen the ad on TV. Whether or not customers are loyal or not, does not have any impact on the argument

    C is justifying the ad campaign and also making an out of scope comparison with another campaign, that it brought more customers. The number of customers is not the scope of the argument

    D is irrelevant and does not provide any reasoning

    E tells us that there was an industry wide decline in sales.
    Regardless of profits or otherwise Dietz made an increase in sales.

    Apparently this weakens conclusion as Dietz out-performed its competitors for that brand of tuna.

    Razz I do not buy E either, but A, D are very wrong. B & C are customer centric, and do not justify higher sales, profitability for Dietz. Cool

    _________________
    Regards,
    Arvind

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 Vincen 152 topics
    2 lheiannie07 61 topics
    3 Roland2rule 49 topics
    4 LUANDATO 44 topics
    5 ardz24 40 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    140 posts
    2 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    110 posts
    3 image description EconomistGMATTutor

    The Economist GMAT Tutor

    109 posts
    4 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    107 posts
    5 image description DavidG@VeritasPrep

    Veritas Prep

    72 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts