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

Redeem

weird CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

weird CR

by dhonu121 » Tue May 29, 2012 11:49 am
In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook its Fast Fries, instead of the less
healthful corn oil that it had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, saying that the change has
hurt sales of Fast Fries. However, this claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King's own sales figures,
Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year. Which of the following, if true,
most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim?
"¢ Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King's locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
"¢ Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.
"¢ Fastfood King's customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.
"¢ The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the
year before.
"¢ The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.

OA:A

I am not able to analyze this argument.
It is conflicting in itself.
On one hand it says, Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, saying that the change has
hurt sales of Fast Fries. and on the other hand it is just denying this fact and says that
However, this claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King's own sales figures,
Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year

Forget about strenthening the argument, firstly tell me how can both these things be true at the same time ?
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Tue May 29, 2012 4:22 pm
Dear dhonu121:

Think of this argument as being spoken by different characters. (Whenever you have a "change in direction" word --- however, nevertheless, but, etc. --- it's good to think of that as coming from a different source.)

Character #1: Corporate Spokesperson for Fastfood King
In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook our Fast Fries, instead of the less healthful corn oil that we had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, because this change has hurt our sales of Fast Fries.

Character #2: Independent fast food industry analyst
This claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King's own sales figures, Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year.

Character #3: the GMAC test writer
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim?

You're perfectly right. The green text contradicts the blue text. When companies talk about their policies and decisions, sometimes they tell the truth, sometime they tell a partial half-truths, and sometimes they outright lie. It is quite possible that the blue text, the official corporate statement, is just a baldfaced lie, and the industry analyst (the green text) is accurately calling it a lie.

If you are going to have success on the GMAT CR, you have to move beyond the worldview of thinking everything you read is true. Corporations lie. Politicians lie. Governments lie. All that is just part and parcel of the world in which we live. The GMAT CR will regularly present agencies such as these, and others, in the act of lying, and sometime even have a second voice calling it a lie, as appears to be happening in this question.

Yes, you are right, the two things can't be true -- they absolutely are contradictions. The blue text is the lie, the green text is the person correctly identifying it as a lie, and you are asked to strengthen green's case against blue.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
User avatar
MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 2279
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:51 am
Location: New York
Thanked: 660 times
Followed by:266 members
GMAT Score:770

by Jim@StratusPrep » Tue May 29, 2012 4:31 pm
Good explanation by Mike... As a good idea to work from: don't ever assume things are factually true in CR questions. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of claims.
GMAT Answers provides a world class adaptive learning platform.
-- Push button course navigation to simplify planning
-- Daily assignments to fit your exam timeline
-- Organized review that is tailored based on your abiility
-- 1,000s of unique GMAT questions
-- 100s of handwritten 'digital flip books' for OG questions
-- 100% Free Trial and less than $20 per month after.
-- Free GMAT Quantitative Review

Image
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Tue May 29, 2012 8:35 pm
Ok. So now I agree that one premise can TOTALLY NEGATE other premise as well.
However, here
Character #1: Corporate Spokesperson for Fastfood King
In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook our Fast Fries, instead of the less healthful corn oil that we had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, because this change has hurt our sales of Fast Fries.

Character #2: Independent fast food industry analyst
This claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King's own sales figures, Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year.

Character #2 has left nothing more to strengthen here. He has totally negated character #1 by quoting numbers which cannot be wrong.
Especially if I see the answer choice A, it seems to do just nothing. Nothing is said about all foods etc. This argument talks just about fries and its sales last year verus its sales this year.
How does A or for that matter any argument strenthen this argument is beyond my understanding.

Experts ?
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Wed May 30, 2012 11:00 am
dhonu121 wrote:Ok. So now I agree that one premise can TOTALLY NEGATE other premise as well.
However, Character #2 has left nothing more to strengthen here. He has totally negated character #1 by quoting numbers which cannot be wrong.
Numbers "which cannot be wrong"? People can lie about numbers as much as about anything else! You seem to have gone from believing the entire text had to be completely true, to accepting that the first character is lying but believing that the second person reveals God's absolute truth. The GMAT CR is not about folks presenting God's Truth in some absolute and unchanging way. It's about different people with different perspectives, different agendas, and good critical thinking means questioning every point of view. All we have are the words, and we have to infer the agendas.

Maybe the corporation is lying, and character #2 is spot-on correct calling them on it. Or maybe, the corporation is basically telling the truth, and character #2 is from a rival fastfood chain spreading lies about them. All we have are the words, and we have no idea what the truth content is of the words.

The question is saying --- what other, separate fact, would give us evidence that character #2's words are true and that the corporation is is not telling the truth? The fact that the question is slanted that way tells us --- OK, for the moment, I'll tentatively accept character #2's words as true, and I'll look for what would strengthen that against FastFood's claim.

Do not get caught in the place of naively believing that what you hear or read is true. Do not fall into the trap of: "It must be true because they said it." That is the kiss of death on the GMAT CR. The GMAT CR is all about critical thinking skills, which means you question every perspective presented to you. Even numbers can be lies. We have to take everything with a healthy dose of skepticism.

This is an immeasurably valuable set of skills to learn. On the GMAT, if you don't apply critical thinking skills, you will struggle on CR (and RC and IR and elsewhere). In the business world, if you don't apply critical thinking skills and simply accept what you hear as true, then there are folks out there who will swindle you blind and leave you broke. Critical thinking skills are an absolute sine qua non for success in the business world.

Does all this make sense? I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:18 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:6 members

by dhonu121 » Wed May 30, 2012 11:05 am
Ok. So choice A is the only one that says something in favour of Character#2 and thus supports the argument against the FastFood King's claim.

Got it !!
Thanks..I owe you a beer man! :)
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Wed May 30, 2012 11:26 am
Now, an explanation of the answer choices ....

In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook its Fast Fries, instead of the less healthful corn oil that it had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt sales of Fast Fries. However, this claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King's own sales figures, Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim?

So the principal piece of evidence against Fastfood King's claim is that, according to the critique (character #2), they sold 10% more Fast Fries last year than the previous year.

(A) Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King's locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
Interesting. If they sold 10% more Fast Fries last year, but if their overall sales increased, say, 20%, then we could see that Fast Fries were lagging behind other products, and maybe their claim about changing the oil back would have a point.
Instead, overall sales increase less than 10%, so if the Fast Fries increase by 10%, the Fast Fries outperformed most of Fastfood King's other products. That strengthens the argument that the Fast Fries were selling well with the new lowfat oil, and presents a stronger case against Fastfood King's claim about needing to changing the oil back to corn oil. [spoiler](A) is promising.[/spoiler]

(B) Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.
Incidentally, that's almost universally true in the restaurant business. The fact that they make a higher profit margin on Soft Drinks tells us nothing about whether Soft Drinks sales increased or decreased, whether Fast Fries sales increased or decreased, etc. It is completely irrelevant to the argument. [spoiler](B) is wrong[/spoiler].

(C) Fastfood King's customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.
First of all, this would strengthen Fastfood King's claim --- it would give a reason for supporting the change back to corn oil. (Often, if you are asked to weaken something, one or two of the wrong answer choices will do the opposite -- that's a frequent pattern on GMAT CR.) Furthermore, if customers like the taste of the old corn oil better, why would they have bought more last year when Fastfood King was using the lowfat oil? This supports the argument we want to weaken and is inconsistent with the argument we are trying to strengthen. [spoiler](C) is wrong. [/spoiler]

(D) The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
First of all, we can't necessarily correlate customer visits with sales. Were more people visiting because they liked the Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil? That would strengthen the argument against Fastfood King's claim. Or, were people visiting in higher numbers for some other reason --- a new salad option or something like that? Then, this fact would be irrelevant to the argument. The trouble is: the claim is too vague, and not specific enough for us to determine whether it would be relevant or not. [spoiler](D) is wrong.[/spoiler]

(E) The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.
The year before last, Fastfood King was still using corn oil, and the year before that they were using corn oil, so this is about two "corn oil" years, and has nothing to do with the change from corn oil to lowfat oil. It's completely irrelevant. [spoiler](E) is out.[/spoiler]

Therefore, A is by far the best answer, the only one that clearly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim.

Here's another CR question, for further practice:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/1306
When you submit your answer to that question, the next page will have a video with the complete explanation.

Does all this make sense? Let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

by [email protected] » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:06 am
Thank You for such a wonderful explanation. I really appreciate such thoughts.
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1