Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

OG Diagnostics - Q2

Expert replies
by sohrabkalra » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:35 am
A year ago, dietz foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for canned tune.last year dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year,an increase directly attributable to the new customers brought in by the advertising campaign. Profits from the additional sales, were however substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly , therefore the campaign did nothing to further dietz economic interests

Which of the following if true, most seriously weakens the argument!

A) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for dietz canned tuna than did the campaign it launched lsat year
B) in each of the past 5 years , there was a steep , industry wide decline in sales of canned tuna

OA: B

My doubt is why not the other one ?
Last edited by sohrabkalra on Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by garima99 » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:15 am
what is the ques stem
Join the discussion

by sohrabkalra » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:21 am
Edited !
Join the discussion

by badpoem » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:01 am
Well, the question is not about the expenses incurred or about a duel between an expensive and a less expensive one. The question is about the effectiveness of the campaign itself as suggested by the conclusion: Clearly , therefore the campaign did nothing to further dietz economic interests

Therefore B, by weakening the argument that the decrease in profits was because of an industry wise trend which continued for the past 5 years and NOT because the ad was ineffective, clearly takes the cake.
Join the discussion

by sohrabkalra » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:14 am
Here is my perspective on this

The author clearly suggests that
1) The sales increased due to the campaign from 10 million cans to 12 million cans
2) The increases revenue however was less than the cost incurred for the campaign

and HENCE concludes

3) the campaign DID NOTHING to FURTHER THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS of the company

Now to weaken this argument , we can either look for an answer that disproves or weakens the conclusion or an answer that tears the logic used to reach that conclusion

A) SHOWS that without the campaign or with any other campaign, the sales would have definitely been lower - HENCE, the campaign contributes to more income from sales
B) SHOWS that the campaign increased sales when THE WHOLE INDUSTRY was facing decline in sales, hence the campaign contributes

So why do we disapprove A and choose B ?
Join the discussion