IMO E.

There is no information to support that the campaign was successful whereas other options directly gives info about drop in sales.

IMO:E (Also 3 years back a program was started, but effects started showing only in the last 2 years, so a little disconnect is there).

Thanks.

I feel it should be C..

I felt that with option E.. The given campaign could have been successful..

But since the price have been constant for the past decade.. The government's decision to use an expensive product is still consistent with the premise that the price was constant for the past decade..

Hope u guyz can clarify it...

Answer should be E.

The stem already says that the consumption has been 'steadily' on the rise. Which means that the campaign had no significant impact on the overall beer consumption.

This makes E useless information from the question's point of view and hence it satisfies the EXCEPT clause as it does nothing to explain the fall in profits.

@neerajkumar - the argument clearly states that beer consumption has increased. So a program started three years ago
to alert people to the perils of alcoholism clearly did not lead to a decrease in consumption. Maybe it was successful in
some regard, there were fewer new converts to beer, but all that is irrelevant. Beer consumption increased, but beer sales
went down. Why? Only (E) fails to resolve this paradox.

Hope that helps .

the premise that beer consumption increased does clarify the answer.
thanks a ton..

chris@magoosh wrote:@neerajkumar - the argument clearly states that beer consumption has increased. So a program started three years ago
to alert people to the perils of alcoholism clearly did not lead to a decrease in consumption. Maybe it was successful in
some regard, there were fewer new converts to beer, but all that is irrelevant. Beer consumption increased, but beer sales
went down. Why? Only (E) fails to resolve this paradox.

Hope that helps .