Critical Reasoning

A veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturer implemented a business strategy to encourage sales by creating a product that could be legally sold over the counter, without the need for a prescription from a veterinarian. The product was a collar for cats intended as a repellent against fleas that, through biting the host animal's epidermis, would die after ingesting some of its blood. Despite the advantage of not having to consult a veterinarian in order to buy one, the collar was not successful commercially.

Which of the following, if true, does the most to explain why the manufacturer's strategy failed to achieve its objective?


1. Although the collar was only to be worn externally, its chemical components, through constant contact with the animal's skin, would be absorbed into the bloodstream, not only killing newly-attached fleas, but also ceasing the reproductive cycle of already present fleas and eggs.
2. It has been proven that pet products with recommendations made by veterinarians printed on their packaging sell far more successfully than those that do not have such recommendations printed on their packaging.
3. The sales of flea collars and other repellents used to maintain pet health are greatly affected by the changes of season, usually very low during the winter and autumn months of the year, rising with the beginning of spring.
4. To be able to sell non-prescription products with active ingredients such as propuxer, the chemical used in anti-pest products, legislation requires that manufacturers limit the presence of the active ingredient.
5. Consultation with a professional veterinarian is always advisable when confronting an issue regarding an animal's health since even someone with a fair amount of medical knowledge may not be aware of illnesses or ailments associated with a specific animal.

Please explain your answer. I will post the OA later.

I would go for B as it gives a reason that the sales of the product were not as expected.

IMO B. Its proven that people tend to buy products which vet endorses. collar was not one of them. so explains why people may not have bought it.

IMO E

one more for E

I would vote for B.

I go with E too

There is no mention of whether the existing packaging used recommendations or not. So B looks weak to me.

I would pick B for being a proven fact already. Nothing is put here for reasoning as such..its straight forward IMO.

A veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturer implemented a business strategy to encourage sales by creating a product that could be legally sold over the counter, without the need for a prescription from a veterinarian. The product was a collar for cats intended as a repellent against fleas that, through biting the host animal's epidermis, would die after ingesting some of its blood. Despite the advantage of not having to consult a veterinarian in order to buy one, the collar was not successful commercially.

Which of the following, if true, does the most to explain why the manufacturer's strategy failed to achieve its objective?


1. Although the collar was only to be worn externally, its chemical components, through constant contact with the animal's skin, would be absorbed into the bloodstream, not only killing newly-attached fleas, but also ceasing the reproductive cycle of already present fleas and eggs.
2. It has been proven that pet products with recommendations made by veterinarians printed on their packaging sell far more successfully than those that do not have such recommendations printed on their packaging.
3. The sales of flea collars and other repellents used to maintain pet health are greatly affected by the changes of season, usually very low during the winter and autumn months of the year, rising with the beginning of spring.
4. To be able to sell non-prescription products with active ingredients such as propuxer, the chemical used in anti-pest products, legislation requires that manufacturers limit the presence of the active ingredient.
5. Consultation with a professional veterinarian is always advisable when confronting an issue regarding an animal's health since even someone with a fair amount of medical knowledge may not be aware of illnesses or ailments associated with a specific animal.

What is the source?

My take:
1. Should explain popularity rather than failure
2. Prescriptions of vets and recos of vets on packaging are different. Nothing is mentioned in this regard.
3. Seasons are not mentioned
4. I will hold this one for now
5. Even if consultation with vets is advisable this product would still be available with/without the prescription of the vet. So why would it affect sales adversely if at all?

Coming back to 4, what does it tell me? It says the law requires the manufacture to limit the active ingredient and maybe therefore the product is useful only for a short duration.

I would go with 4 though even I am not fully convinced.

OA, source and explanation please.

Coming back to 4, what does it tell me? It says the law requires the manufacture to limit the active ingredient and maybe therefore the product is useful only for a short duration.

Question is about whether the sale has happened or not? Whether the product was useful or whether it was useful for a short duration or not is irrelevant.

I go with E too

There is no mention of whether the existing packaging used recommendations or not. So B looks weak to me.

There is no hard and fast rule that you cannot not bring outside information.

Quote:
I go with E too

There is no mention of whether the existing packaging used recommendations or not. So B looks weak to me.
There is no hard and fast rule that you cannot not bring outside information.

you cant assume the presence or absence of vet recos on the package pf the product.

Yes you can use information not mentioned in the passage directly but which is implied (or can be inferred) by the passage somehow. B is no way implied and cannot be assumed.

Quote:
Coming back to 4, what does it tell me? It says the law requires the manufacture to limit the active ingredient and maybe therefore the product is useful only for a short duration.
Question is about whether the sale has happened or not? Whether the product was useful or whether it was useful for a short duration or not is irrelevant.

Question is WHY the sales didn't happen and yes I am making an assumption not directly in the passage but it would imply that the product wasn't good enough for sales and I am not fully convinced myself between 4 & 5

The passage mentions

Despite the advantage of not having to consult a veterinarian in order to buy one, the collar was not successful commercially.

This was the assumed advantage of the product which is negated by point 5 but I ruled this out because if the product was good it would be a commercial success with/without vets' prescriptions so probably(and logically) the assumed advantage of the product was correct but the product per se was not up to the mark leading to low sales.

I think now we should be told the source and OA with explanation

OA is 4(D). Since I don't have explanation, I cannot post it. If you ask me, I am not fully convinced with the answer.

IMO D
I chose D without seeing the posts or the OA.I reasoned it as D as follows.

1 Although the collar was only to be worn externally, its chemical components, through constant contact with the animal's skin, would be absorbed into the bloodstream, not only killing newly-attached fleas, but also ceasing the reproductive cycle of already present fleas and eggs. strengthens the reason for increase in sell -->incorrect
2. It has been proven that pet products with recommendations made by veterinarians printed on their packaging sell far more successfully than those that do not have such recommendations printed on their packaging. tempting but nothing has been mentioned about it in the passage so checked for other answers
3. The sales of flea collars and other repellents used to maintain pet health are greatly affected by the changes of season, usually very low during the winter and autumn months of the year, rising with the beginning of spring.does not help incorrect
4. To be able to sell non-prescription products with active ingredients such as propuxer, the chemical used in anti-pest products, legislation requires that manufacturers limit the presence of the active ingredient. better option than B clearly indicating that initially though the product is useful but will not help for longer duration.So the sell reduced
5. Consultation with a professional veterinarian is always advisable when confronting an issue regarding an animal's health since even someone with a fair amount of medical knowledge may not be aware of illnesses or ailments associated with a specific animal out of scope

hope the explanation helped

Which of the following, if true, does the most to explain why the manufacturer's strategy failed to achieve its objective?

1. Although the collar was only to be worn externally, its chemical components, through constant contact with the animal's skin, would be absorbed into the bloodstream, not only killing newly-attached fleas, but also ceasing the reproductive cycle of already present fleas and eggs.
INCORRECT : Strengthens the argument. Product will be more successful if it kills not only newly-attached fleas but also stops the reproductive cycle of fleas n eggs

2. It has been proven that pet products with recommendations made by veterinarians printed on their packaging sell far more successfully than those that do not have such recommendations printed on their packaging.
INCORRECT : Cannot mistake 'prescription from a vet' for 'recommendations by vets printed on the package'

3. The sales of flea collars and other repellents used to maintain pet health are greatly affected by the changes of season, usually very low during the winter and autumn months of the year, rising with the beginning of spring.
INCORRECT : Issue is not about the effect of seasons on increase/decrease in sales, issue is about overall commercial success of the product

4. To be able to sell non-prescription products with active ingredients such as propuxer, the chemical used in anti-pest products, legislation requires that manufacturers limit the presence of the active ingredient.
CORRECT : A paradox answer choice can be okay even if it contains additional information. The new information (limiting the presence of active ingredient) helps to explain the discrepancy (vet product was commercially unsuccessful even after considering the advantage of not having to consult a vet) and hence this is a correct answer.

5. Consultation with a professional veterinarian is always advisable when confronting an issue regarding an animal's health since even someone with a fair amount of medical knowledge may not be aware of illnesses or ailments associated with a specific animal.
INCORRECT : Consultation with a vet is not a guarantee of specific product prescription by the vet. So this is irrelevant.

B seems to be the best choice here