candy manufacturer

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

candy manufacturer

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 6:02 am
Source: Kaplan Verbal workbook

The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated. Most of the candy eaten on the job and not paid for is eaten one piece at a time, by workers who would not be willing to buy an entire box of it anyway.

Which of the following if true, most weakens the argument above?

A: The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold
B: Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
C: A few workers account for most of the candy that is eaten but not paid for.
D: Most of the candies eaten by employees are consumed during the holiday season, when production outputs are at their highest
E: The amount of candy eaten by employees is only a small fraction of the candy sold by the company

OA: B

How to proceed about it?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Tue May 25, 2010 6:51 am
First, identify the conclusion "that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated"

Examine the evidence and ask yourself whether you are convinced. The answer should be no! The argument assumes that no-one else would be willing to buy an entire box of candy, an absurd assumption (if it were true, why is the candy being manufactured?)

B states this this assumption is invalid!
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:29 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:700

by asamaverick » Tue May 25, 2010 6:52 am
The argument is that employee "theft" does not cost the company, because the employees who eat while on job would never buy it from the market. Implying that the company is not losing any potential sales as these employees are not potential customers.

A : Out of context.
B : This directly opposes the argument. The employees who eat are not potential customers, but what if there are other potential customers who were willing to buy, but the company is not able to reach them all as it loses some of the candies because of employee "theft".
C : We are not bothered about 'few' workers, we are only looking for any possibility of lost revenue.
D : When the candies are consumed is irrelevant in this context.
E : Same as C

Legendary Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:33 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:2 members

by kstv » Tue May 25, 2010 7:19 am
akhp77 wrote:Source: Kaplan Verbal workbook
The candy manufacturer's claim that employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated.
The loss is actually not much cos' the worker who eats a piece of candy could have never bought a whole box of candy in the first place. The employees are not the potential customer of candy boxes. Also the candies are not sold individually.

Unlike option A: The workers eat only defective candies that could not be sold the, option B: Candy eaten by employees could be sold to non-employees. Most probably the candies are eaten before being packed into boxes.

Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 8:06 am
Still, I could not understand why B is correct.

employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated.

Conclusion: Candy Manufacturers do not loss thousands of dollars a year in potential sales the candy eaten by workers.

Evidence: Most of the candy eaten by workers on job will not purchase even though they do not theft.

I don't understand what B is saying?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Tue May 25, 2010 8:08 am
akhp77 wrote:Still, I could not understand why B is correct.

employee "theft" costs the company thousands of dollars a year in potential sales is greatly overstated.

Conclusion: Candy Manufacturers do not loss thousands of dollars a year in potential sales the candy eaten by workers.

Evidence: Most of the candy eaten by workers on job will not purchase even though they do not theft.

I don't understand what B is saying?
If the employees did not eat the candy, it might be sold to non-employees
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid

Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 9:05 am
kevincanspain wrote:
If the employees did not eat the candy, it might be sold to non-employees
Yes, I understood your point.

Is the following statement is reverse of that. This is the problem I am facing.

Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:730

by ballubalraj » Wed May 26, 2010 2:22 am
akhp77 wrote:
Is the following statement is reverse of that. This is the problem I am facing.

Candy eaten by employees represents lost potential sales to non-employees
Exactly - the candies that are eaten by employees (without paying), could have been sold to non-employees and thus earning some money for the company. Now, because those candies are eaten out, they cause loss to the company.

Does that explain?

Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Wed May 26, 2010 3:33 am
I got it.