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

Redeem

FastFood King Fries FRIED me ! (MGMAT Cat Question)

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:36 am

FastFood King Fries FRIED me ! (MGMAT Cat Question)

by orgplea » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:35 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?


A)Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King's locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.

B)Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.

C)Fastfood King's customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.

D)The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

E)The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.


Can somebody pls help me break this question.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by agarwalmanoj2000 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:15 pm
IMO A

Goal: We have to strengthen "Sales of Fast Fries is not hurt".

Option A does the same.

A)Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.

It says sales of all foods increased by less than 10%, and we know that sales of Fast Fries increased by 10% i.e. more than other foods. Thus sales of fast fries was better than other foods and was not hurt.

HTH
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:54 pm
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 5 times

by bryan88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:08 pm
IMO D

OA?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:39 am
orgplea 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?

A)Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King's locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.

B)Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.

C)Fastfood King's customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.

D)The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

E)The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.

This argument links a STATISTIC to a conclusion.
When an argument offers a statistic as evidence, the assumption is generally the same: that there is ONLY ONE WAY to interpret the statistic.

Statistic: Fastfood King sold 10 PERCENT MORE FAST FRIES last year than in the previous year.
Conclusion: The change to low-fat oil DID NOT HURT SALES of Fast Fries last year.

A 10% increase could be good or bad; it depends on the CONTEXT.
If sales of every other type of food TRIPLED, then a 10% increase in the sales of the fries would be RELATIVELY small.
To support the conclusion here, the correct answer must show that the 10% increase was a good outcome and that sales of the fries were not hurt.

Answer choice A gives us what we need: Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King's locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
If overall food sales increased by LESS THAN 10%, then the 10% increase in the sales of the fries was RELATIVELY high, supporting the conclusion that sales of the fries were not hurt.

The correct answer is A.

Reasons to eliminate:

B) Profits are outside the scope; the conclusion is only about SALES.

C) If customers prefer corn oil, then the conclusion that switching to low fat oil did not hurt sales is WEAKENED.

D) If the number of customers increased by a higher percentage than did the amount of sales, then the conclusion that sales have not been hurt is WEAKENED.

E) If sales increased by smaller percentage last year than they had the previous year, then the conclusion that sales have not been hurt is WEAKENED.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Tue May 01, 2012 1:13 pm
(A) for me.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1