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

Redeem

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.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
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
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start 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

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Plz Weak this conclusion

Expert replies
by abhijeetsinghai » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:38 am
Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette smokers switch brands. Yet the manufacturers have been spending an amount equal to 10 percent of their gross receipts on cigarette promotion in magazines. It follows from these figures that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay, and that cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising.
19. Of the following, the best criticism of the conclusion that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay is that the conclusion is based on
(A) computing advertising costs as a percentage of gross receipts, not of overall costs
(B) past patterns of smoking and may not carry over to the future
(C) the assumption that each smoker is loyal to a single brand of cigarettes at any one time
(D) the assumption that each manufacturer produces only one brand of cigarettes
(E) figures for the cigarette industry as a whole and may not hold for a particular company

Confused between C and E, can't rule out A too.
PLz throw some light...thanks

OA: After some responses
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Re: Plz Weak this conclusion

by Vemuri » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:51 am
abhijeetsinghai wrote:Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette smokers switch brands. Yet the manufacturers have been spending an amount equal to 10 percent of their gross receipts on cigarette promotion in magazines. It follows from these figures that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay, and that cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising.
19. Of the following, the best criticism of the conclusion that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay is that the conclusion is based on
(A) computing advertising costs as a percentage of gross receipts, not of overall costs
(B) past patterns of smoking and may not carry over to the future
(C) the assumption that each smoker is loyal to a single brand of cigarettes at any one time
(D) the assumption that each manufacturer produces only one brand of cigarettes
(E) figures for the cigarette industry as a whole and may not hold for a particular company

Confused between C and E, can't rule out A too.
PLz throw some light...thanks

OA: After some responses
E is the best option that criticizes the argument.

A --> does not help because percentage of gross receipts or overall costs will not criticize the conclusion.

C --> too strong statement negating the argument that 10% switch brands. This statement says that all smokers stick to the only one brand.
Join the discussion

Re: Plz Weak this conclusion

by Vemuri » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:52 am
E is the best option that criticizes the argument.

A --> does not help because percentage of gross receipts or overall costs will not criticize the conclusion.

C --> too strong statement negating the argument that 10% switch brands. This statement says that all smokers stick to the only one brand.[/quote]
Join the discussion

by dendude » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:54 am
I'm taking a guess with C.

If a smoker is using many brands at the same time, then the concept of switching brands does not come into picture. On seeing an advertisement, he could choose that brand and add it to the number of brands he's using, which would not constitute as a switch in brand but would be a result of the advertisement.

I'm guessing here. I may be wrong.
Join the discussion

by cramya » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:35 am
I think its C too.

E looks good too but the reason I choose C is beacuse the question refers to the part of the conclusion "that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay".

It does not refer to the other part of the conclusion "that cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising" in which case E would be fine.

Juts my 2 cents....

If its part of 1000cr then I have seen cases where the OA given has been incorrect.I could be totally off here and the OA could be right in this case.


I would PM an expert and see what they say.

Regards,
Cramya
Join the discussion

by bmlaud » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:23 am
IMO E,

Its a Flaw in reasoning question. The argument would be true only if 10% of smokers contributed for 10% of revenues for a particular company.

Regardin A - Advt. cost as a percentage of receipts no way affect the conclusion.

C - The survey shows that smokers change a brand in one year so it is reasonable to assume brand loyality for one year. The argument is also valid for a period of one year.
"Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance."
Join the discussion

by abhijeetsinghai » Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:01 am
OA: E

But still confused why not C...experts please help
Join the discussion

by karmayogi » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:02 pm
I selected C, but the OA is E. Experts???
Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divine within.
--By Swami Vivekananda
Join the discussion

by dgr8onerip » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:48 am
IMO- E
(A) computing advertising costs as a percentage of gross receipts, not of overall costs
(B) past patterns of smoking and may not carry over to the future
(C) the assumption that each smoker is loyal to a single brand of cigarettes at any one time
(D) the assumption that each manufacturer produces only one brand of cigarettes
(E) figures for the cigarette industry as a whole and may not hold for a particular company

The point is that the conclusion is that advertising failed completely.
Now we can prove that the ads did not fail completely if some companies were able to get more new customers.
E comes close to explaining that 10% was spent by all manufacturers. May be some company spent more on ads and got more customers or may be they spent less and lost customers
Basically the point that would perfectly counter the question is- Companies that advertised less lost more customers due to brand-switch
E indirectly points in the same direction
target score- anything above 700
preferably above 750
gmat prep 1- 710
powerprep 1- 730
barrons test 1- 760
kaplan test 1- 620 (lol)
kaplan test 2- 680
score 800 1-720
score 800 2- 730
score 800 3-750
score 800 4-720
score 800 5- 710
gmat prep 1 (retake)- 710
gmat prep 2- 730
gmat prep 2 (retake)- 720
actual gmat - 770 :)
Join the discussion

Re: Plz Weak this conclusion

by dtweah » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:49 am
abhijeetsinghai wrote:Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette smokers switch brands. Yet the manufacturers have been spending an amount equal to 10 percent of their gross receipts on cigarette promotion in magazines. It follows from these figures that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay, and that cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising.
19. Of the following, the best criticism of the conclusion that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay is that the conclusion is based on
(A) computing advertising costs as a percentage of gross receipts, not of overall costs
(B) past patterns of smoking and may not carry over to the future
(C) the assumption that each smoker is loyal to a single brand of cigarettes at any one time
(D) the assumption that each manufacturer produces only one brand of cigarettes
(E) figures for the cigarette industry as a whole and may not hold for a particular company

Confused between C and E, can't rule out A too.
PLz throw some light...thanks

OA: After some responses



Conclusion: Inducing smokers to switch failed.

Premise: Manufacturers spending 10% of receipts did not raise the percentage of smokers who switch from 10% to a higher percentage.

Although this number stayed the same, some manufacturers may have benefited from the ad expenditure. Manufacterer’s A’s gain could be equal to B’s loss of smokers, resulting the percentage staying constant. Clearly, A would not have wasted money as the conclusion implies.

I go with E.
Join the discussion

by kris77 » Fri May 13, 2016 10:59 pm
Well I feel E is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could
Join the discussion