Critical Reasoning

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.
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.
(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.


I am not able to convince myself that C is wrong. From what I understand about this questions
we have

Conclusion : Campaign did not further the economic interest
Premise : Profit of sales < Cost of Camp.

I totally agree that E is actually telling us that there were other factors which caused the
sales to be less and campaign was still able to further the economic interest.

However, choice C introduces a new evidence that even though the campaign could not increase the sales to the level that it could profit the company, it still captured more customers than a less expensive campaign would have. Doesn't that weaken the force of the existing Premise ?

Explanation would be much appreciated

I have also selected C

Even though option E weakens the argument - It does not relate the sale increase directly with campaign. It might be possible that Doetz tuna compared to other brand available in the market

Option C explicitly relates the sales with the campaign. Option C states that with less expensive campaign, company would have brought "significantly" less customers - means it would have further reduced the profits of the company

Please advice.

ranjit_ece wrote: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.
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.
(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.


I am not able to convince myself that C is wrong. From what I understand about this questions
we have

Conclusion : Campaign did not further the economic interest
Premise : Profit of sales < Cost of Camp.

I totally agree that E is actually telling us that there were other factors which caused the
sales to be less and campaign was still able to further the economic interest.

However, choice C introduces a new evidence that even though the campaign could not increase the sales to the level that it could profit the company, it still captured more customers than a less expensive campaign would have. Doesn't that weaken the force of the existing Premise ?

Explanation would be much appreciated

I think in this question topic of discussion is not about expenditure over advertising, its about success of the advertising did by company, so comparing less expensive advertise with the expensive one is out of the scope.

So IMO C is totally out of scope.

(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep,
industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.

E clearly says that sales of tuna was decreasing industry wide in past five year, but after this ad campaign company not only able to retain the sales figure, but also increased a bit where as industry is seeing a decline.

I hope this would help.

ranjit_ece wrote: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.
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.
(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.


I am not able to convince myself that C is wrong. From what I understand about this questions
we have

Conclusion : Campaign did not further the economic interest
Premise : Profit of sales < Cost of Camp.

I totally agree that E is actually telling us that there were other factors which caused the
sales to be less and campaign was still able to further the economic interest.

However, choice C introduces a new evidence that even though the campaign could not increase the sales to the level that it could profit the company, it still captured more customers than a less expensive campaign would have. Doesn't that weaken the force of the existing Premise ?

Explanation would be much appreciated

Learn to recognize the common flaws.
This argument exhibits a language shift.

The premise is about profits.
The conclusion is about economic interests.
The argument assumes that profits and economic interests are the same thing.

The correct answer will break the link between these two ideas: it will show that, despite the lack of profits, the campaign still furthered Dietz's economic interests.

Answer choice E does just what we need:

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

The key word is sales. While the rest of industry had declining sales, Dietz made additional sales. Thus, the campaign furthered Dietz's economic interests, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.

The correct answer is E.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ranjit_ece wrote: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.
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.
(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.


I am not able to convince myself that C is wrong. From what I understand about this questions
we have

Conclusion : Campaign did not further the economic interest
Premise : Profit of sales < Cost of Camp.

I totally agree that E is actually telling us that there were other factors which caused the
sales to be less and campaign was still able to further the economic interest.

However, choice C introduces a new evidence that even though the campaign could not increase the sales to the level that it could profit the company, it still captured more customers than a less expensive campaign would have. Doesn't that weaken the force of the existing Premise ?

Explanation would be much appreciated

Learn to recognize the common flaws.
This argument exhibits a language shift.

The premise is about profits.
The conclusion is about economic interests.
The argument assumes that profits and economic interests are the same thing.

The correct answer will break the link between these two ideas: it will show that, despite the lack of profits, the campaign still furthered Dietz's economic interests.

Answer choice E does just what we need:

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

The key word is sales. While the rest of industry had declining sales, Dietz made additional sales. Thus, the campaign furthered Dietz's economic interests, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.

The correct answer is E.

Thanks for the explanation Mitch.

Could you correct me if I am wrong, but the reason that C is incorrect is that
it does not talk anything about increase in SALES... All it says is that No. of new customers increased, which calls for an assumption that maybe there was increases in sales because of these customers and this fact may not be necessarily true.

However, if I don't follow the above logic..
then in accordance to what you mentioned, if a less expensive campaign would lead to less new customers then with this more expensive camp. though the profits are not guaranteed isn't the economic interest (increase in clientele) of the company still being served because of more new customers.

ranjit_ece wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ranjit_ece wrote: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.
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.
(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.


I am not able to convince myself that C is wrong. From what I understand about this questions
we have

Conclusion : Campaign did not further the economic interest
Premise : Profit of sales < Cost of Camp.

I totally agree that E is actually telling us that there were other factors which caused the
sales to be less and campaign was still able to further the economic interest.

However, choice C introduces a new evidence that even though the campaign could not increase the sales to the level that it could profit the company, it still captured more customers than a less expensive campaign would have. Doesn't that weaken the force of the existing Premise ?

Explanation would be much appreciated

Learn to recognize the common flaws.
This argument exhibits a language shift.

The premise is about profits.
The conclusion is about economic interests.
The argument assumes that profits and economic interests are the same thing.

The correct answer will break the link between these two ideas: it will show that, despite the lack of profits, the campaign still furthered Dietz's economic interests.

Answer choice E does just what we need:

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

The key word is sales. While the rest of industry had declining sales, Dietz made additional sales. Thus, the campaign furthered Dietz's economic interests, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.

The correct answer is E.

Thanks for the explanation Mitch.

Could you correct me if I am wrong, but the reason that C is incorrect is that
it does not talk anything about increase in SALES... All it says is that No. of new customers increased, which calls for an assumption that maybe there was increases in sales because of these customers and this fact may not be necessarily true.

The correct answer must break the link between profits and economic interests.

Answer choice C does not break this link. It simply reaffirms what we already have been told: that last year's advertising campaign brought in customers. The argument implies that these customers are irrelevant because of the lack of profits. The correct answer must show how, despite the lack of profits, the campaign still furthered the economic interests of Dietz foods.