BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Canned Tuna

Expert replies
by nervesofsteel » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:18 pm
A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million 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 further Dietz's economic interests.
92
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.
(8) 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
(C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned
tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by papgust » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:25 pm
Answer must be E here

If there is a steep decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the last 5 years, then the advertising campaign has very much helped the company to increase its sales and thereby enhancing economic interests of Dietz's food.
Join the discussion

by nervesofsteel » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:57 pm
papgust wrote:Answer must be E here

If there is a steep decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the last 5 years, then the advertising campaign has very much helped the company to increase its sales and thereby enhancing economic interests of Dietz's food.
Why is C wrong...??

If a less expensive campaign would have brought less customers and we know that the increase in sale is due
to newly added customers.. then this campaign has helped ..!!

Thanks
Join the discussion

by papgust » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:17 pm
IMO C neither weakens nor strenghtens the argument. We are only looking to undermine the argument that campaign did nothing to further economic interests. We are not concerned whether a less expensive campaign would have brought in new customers or an expensive campaign would have brought in more new customers.
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:32 pm
Agree. The answer should be E.
papgust wrote:IMO C neither weakens nor strenghtens the argument. We are only looking to undermine the argument that campaign did nothing to further economic interests. We are not concerned whether a less expensive campaign would have brought in new customers or an expensive campaign would have brought in more new customers.
Join the discussion

by nervesofsteel » Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:35 am
OA E

thanks all for sharing your point of view
Join the discussion

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:47 am
Sorry.. I am reopening this thread..

Can someone tell me why option A is wrong? There is no mention that canned tuna is the only product of deitz foods.
Join the discussion

by SmarpanGamt » Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:00 am
kvcpk wrote:Sorry.. I am reopening this thread..

Can someone tell me why option A is wrong? There is no mention that canned tuna is the only product of deitz foods.
The argument is on Campaign cost and econmonic of campaign cost t odirect sales. Other products will neither strength or weaken the argument.
Join the discussion

by singalong » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:07 am
But if the sales made were a part of the profits, which is apparently less, then wouldn't be the reason why the campaign didn't help in the process?
Join the discussion

by mankey » Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:22 pm
Someone please provide OA for this one.

Thanks.
Join the discussion

by singalong » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:24 pm
a little help here experts..
Join the discussion

by Joseph_Alexander » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:21 am
I was stuck between E and C here.

I eliminated E thinking that in the last 5 years (including the year in which 12MN (Yr 5 - and not Yr6) and 10MN (Yr 4) tins were sold) the industry was in a declining trend. So had the company not advertised so heavily in Yr 5, its sales would have been much lesser than 10MN tins, may be say 8MN tins (if the industry decline rate was 20%). Just because it advertised heavily it had 20% more sales than each of its competitors is the market. This certainly now is an economic benefit! :D
Join the discussion

by BTGmoderatorAT » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:34 am
Is letter A wrong?
I assume Dietz Foods also has other products..
Join the discussion

Canned Tuna

by ErikaPrepScholar » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:36 am
We want to weaken the argument that the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests. In other words, we want to support the argument that the campaign did further Dietz's economic interests.

Answer choice A is out of scope. Looking at the passage, we see that the campaign was for Dietz's canned tuna, not for any of its other products. Whether or not Dietz sells additional products, this question is about how a canned tuna campaign improves canned tuna sales. If this statement is true, Dietz still paid more for the canned tuna campaign than it got in canned tuna sales. Maybe since Dietz has other products, it isn't as big of a loss, but it's still a loss.

Answer choice C is similar. A less expensive campaign may have brought in fewer customers. That doesn't change anything about the campaign Dietz actually ran! Even if the campaign earned Dietz more customers than a less expensive campaign would have, the gain from the new customers is still lower than what Dietz spent on the campaign. A less expensive campaign may have been even less successful, but the campaign that actually happened still lost Dietz money.
Image

Erika John - Content Manager/Lead Instructor
https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/

Get tutoring from me or another PrepScholar GMAT expert: https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/tutoring/

Learn about our exclusive savings for BTG members (up to 25% off) and our 5 day free trial

Check out our PrepScholar GMAT YouTube channel, and read our expert guides on the PrepScholar GMAT blog
Join the discussion