This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

Dietz Food

by adi_800 » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:43 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.
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.
(B) 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.

It has to be between C and E..
Conclusion: the ad campaign did nothing to to further economic interests.
Option should show that no..the increase in sale was due to the ad campaign..
[spoiler]C->[/spoiler] if cheaper ad campaign should have been there..then fewer customers would have been there and hence the expensive ad had more customers and hence sales of canned tuna increased... => The argument about ad campaign did very little to further economic interests is weakened..
[spoiler]E-> [/spoiler]Everyone experienced sales decline but Dietz experienced increase in sales...So, this increase in sales could be attributed to the ad campaign... => The argument about ad campaign did very little to further economic interests is weakened..

Now...which one to chose...
Btw OA is E

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:02 am
The answer has to be E.

Conclusion: the ad campaign did nothing to further economic interests.

Option E says, in each of the past five years, there was a steep industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna. But the sales of Dietz Foods increased from 10 million cans to 12 million cans. Instead of decreasing, the reason why sales of Dietz Foods have increased can be attributed to the ad-campaign. So basically we can say that economic interests have been served here.

Option C says that a less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in even fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year. That means that a less expensive advertising campaign would have resulted in even lesser sales figure. So if the argument says sales of 12 million cans did not serve the economic interests, then obviously sales of less than 12 million cans is not going to serve the economic interests.

Hope that helps..

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by adi_800 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:14 am
Oh yes..
Thanks hardik..
Got the reasoning now...

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: 09 Sep 2020

Re: Dietz Food

by allan10carlo86 » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:24 am
I have a question on this why not choose D? They made money on the sales....