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

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

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.

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.