Critical Reasoning

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?

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


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


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


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


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

IMO A

Fast food company's claim: French Fries sale declined last year because of new oil.

Question: argument against the above claim.

A says all food sales (includesFrench fries)increased last year (the percent of increase is irrelevant.)

Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
This supports the argument because the percentage increase of fries outperformed the percentage increase of total sales.

Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.
This statement isn't relevant to the argument.

Fastfood King’s customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.
If customers preferred the taste of fries cooked in corn oil then this would weaken the argument made that the weren't adversely affected by the switch in oil.


The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
If they had 20% more customers and sales of fries only increased by 10% the switch of oil may have adversely affected sales. Therefore this would weaken the argument.

The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.
If the year before last they had a 20 percent increase in fry sales but last year only had a 10 percent increase the switch of oil may have adversely affected sales. This would weaken the argument.

I choose A

dmateer25 wrote:Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
This supports the argument because the percentage increase of fries outperformed the percentage increase of total sales.

Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.
This statement isn't relevant to the argument.

Fastfood King’s customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.
If customers preferred the taste of fries cooked in corn oil then this would weaken the argument made that the weren't adversely affected by the switch in oil.


The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
If they had 20% more customers and sales of fries only increased by 10% the switch of oil may have adversely affected sales. Therefore this would weaken the argument.

The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.
If the year before last they had a 20 percent increase in fry sales but last year only had a 10 percent increase the switch of oil may have adversely affected sales. This would weaken the argument.

I choose A

dmateer25 - THANKS FOR GREAT EXPLANATION!

Hopefully more and more people will use your style to explain whay they think about each options. VERY HELPFUL

And yes the OA is A.

Good work!

Option A looks good than other answers.