Plz Weak this conclusion

Question

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

Vemuri · Answer

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.

Vemuri · Answer

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]

dendude · Answer

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.

cramya · Answer

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

bmlaud · Answer

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.

abhijeetsinghai · Answer

OA: E But still confused why not C...experts please help

karmayogi · Answer

I selected C, but the OA is E. Experts???

dgr8onerip · Answer

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

dtweah · Answer

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.

kris77 · Answer

Well I feel E is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could

Choose how you want to prepare

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Plz Weak this conclusion

Re: Plz Weak this conclusion

Re: Plz Weak this conclusion

Re: Plz Weak this conclusion

Chicago Booth

GMAT Course Reviews

Admissions Consulting Reviews

FREE GMAT PREP RESOURCES

GMAT PREP DEAL TRACKER