this is tricky as hell but I was trying to choose between A and E, and chose E.

one question though - doesn't last year mean the same thing as previous year?

Answer should be A

A.

Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
The total sales increased by less than 10% still the fries sales went up supports the claim that sales of fries arent hurt.

B.This statement is out of scope and useless.Irrelevent

CThis again neither supports not defies the argument.Irrelevent

D This supports fastffod chains arguments that thier sales suffered as sales didnot increase in proportion to customers

E Irrelevent


What is the answer?

Answer should be A

A.

Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
The total sales increased by less than 10% still the fries sales went up supports the claim that sales of fries arent hurt.

B.This statement is out of scope and useless.Irrelevent

CThis again neither supports not defies the argument.Irrelevent

D This supports fastffod chains arguments that thier sales suffered as sales didnot increase in proportion to customers

E Irrelevent


What is the answer?

singhran wrote: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.

Your opinion on this. OA after some replies.

IMO - its D

As, the assumption, the Fast food chain is making is that 'the sale may have increased, but the number of customers has decreased, and this may be due to the change in oil.

D contradicts that assumption.

a_niraj -> here "previous" year mean, year before the "last" year. As the starting statement of the argument is "In January of last year...."

my pick is A

i think its D..

It goes this way,

It says the sales figure of fries went up by 10%..

But what if the number of people visited increased ?
Suppose initially there were 100 people who visited and 60 bought fries,i.e 60%..

Now it the number of people coming in has increased by 20%,i.e 120
and sales of fries has increased by 10%,i.e 66 !!

But 66 is 55% of 120..!!That means even if the sales have increased the company is facing a loss as the customers have increased and that negates the claim.!!

i hope this helps..
whats d OA?
let me know if i am wrong..

This argument concerns the impact of the change in cooking oil used by Fastfood King, and whether or not this change had an adverse impact on sales. It is given that sales of Fast Fries increased by 10 percent subsequent to the change. The issue is whether or not this 10 percent increase compares favorably to the increase one would expect taking other factors into account, including in particular the percentage increase enjoyed by Fastfood King’s other offerings.

A. CORRECT. This statement indicates that Fastfood King’s total food sales increased by less than 10 percent. As the sales of Fast Fries increased at a higher rate of 10 percent, this strongly suggests that the change to lowfat oil did not adversely impact the sales of Fast Fries.


B. The profit margins of different Fastfood King offerings are not relevant to the argument.

C. Any preference for the taste of corn oil over the new lowfat oil would damage, not support, the conclusion that the change has not negatively impacted the sales of Fast Fries.

D. The fact that Fastfood King was visited by 20 percent more people last year suggests that consumption of Fast Fries, which increased by only 10 percent, may have been adversely affected by the change. This would weaken the conclusion, not strengthen it.

E. That the sales of Fast Fries increased by 20 percent in the previous year suggests that the rate of increase was slowed last year, possibly as a result of the cooking oil change. This would weaken the conclusion that the change did not have any negative impact on sales, rather than strengthen it.


Cheers

My intuition whispers that it is A