A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans
of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers
brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the
advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.
92
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.
(8) Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal
customers of other Dietz products. 3
(C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned
tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.
(D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year.
(E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna.
Canned Tuna
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
- papgust
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
- Thanked: 653 times
- Followed by:252 members
Answer must be E here
If there is a steep decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the last 5 years, then the advertising campaign has very much helped the company to increase its sales and thereby enhancing economic interests of Dietz's food.
If there is a steep decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the last 5 years, then the advertising campaign has very much helped the company to increase its sales and thereby enhancing economic interests of Dietz's food.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
Why is C wrong...??papgust wrote:Answer must be E here
If there is a steep decline in sales of canned tuna in each of the last 5 years, then the advertising campaign has very much helped the company to increase its sales and thereby enhancing economic interests of Dietz's food.
If a less expensive campaign would have brought less customers and we know that the increase in sale is due
to newly added customers.. then this campaign has helped ..!!
Thanks
- papgust
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
- Thanked: 653 times
- Followed by:252 members
IMO C neither weakens nor strenghtens the argument. We are only looking to undermine the argument that campaign did nothing to further economic interests. We are not concerned whether a less expensive campaign would have brought in new customers or an expensive campaign would have brought in more new customers.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
Agree. The answer should be E.
papgust wrote:IMO C neither weakens nor strenghtens the argument. We are only looking to undermine the argument that campaign did nothing to further economic interests. We are not concerned whether a less expensive campaign would have brought in new customers or an expensive campaign would have brought in more new customers.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:08 am
- Thanked: 6 times
The argument is on Campaign cost and econmonic of campaign cost t odirect sales. Other products will neither strength or weaken the argument.kvcpk wrote:Sorry.. I am reopening this thread..
Can someone tell me why option A is wrong? There is no mention that canned tuna is the only product of deitz foods.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 11:26 am
- Thanked: 1 times
I was stuck between E and C here.
I eliminated E thinking that in the last 5 years (including the year in which 12MN (Yr 5 - and not Yr6) and 10MN (Yr 4) tins were sold) the industry was in a declining trend. So had the company not advertised so heavily in Yr 5, its sales would have been much lesser than 10MN tins, may be say 8MN tins (if the industry decline rate was 20%). Just because it advertised heavily it had 20% more sales than each of its competitors is the market. This certainly now is an economic benefit!
I eliminated E thinking that in the last 5 years (including the year in which 12MN (Yr 5 - and not Yr6) and 10MN (Yr 4) tins were sold) the industry was in a declining trend. So had the company not advertised so heavily in Yr 5, its sales would have been much lesser than 10MN tins, may be say 8MN tins (if the industry decline rate was 20%). Just because it advertised heavily it had 20% more sales than each of its competitors is the market. This certainly now is an economic benefit!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:48 pm
- Followed by:1 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
- ErikaPrepScholar
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:03 am
- Thanked: 86 times
- Followed by:15 members
- GMAT Score:770
We want to weaken the argument that the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests. In other words, we want to support the argument that the campaign did further Dietz's economic interests.
Answer choice A is out of scope. Looking at the passage, we see that the campaign was for Dietz's canned tuna, not for any of its other products. Whether or not Dietz sells additional products, this question is about how a canned tuna campaign improves canned tuna sales. If this statement is true, Dietz still paid more for the canned tuna campaign than it got in canned tuna sales. Maybe since Dietz has other products, it isn't as big of a loss, but it's still a loss.
Answer choice C is similar. A less expensive campaign may have brought in fewer customers. That doesn't change anything about the campaign Dietz actually ran! Even if the campaign earned Dietz more customers than a less expensive campaign would have, the gain from the new customers is still lower than what Dietz spent on the campaign. A less expensive campaign may have been even less successful, but the campaign that actually happened still lost Dietz money.
Answer choice A is out of scope. Looking at the passage, we see that the campaign was for Dietz's canned tuna, not for any of its other products. Whether or not Dietz sells additional products, this question is about how a canned tuna campaign improves canned tuna sales. If this statement is true, Dietz still paid more for the canned tuna campaign than it got in canned tuna sales. Maybe since Dietz has other products, it isn't as big of a loss, but it's still a loss.
Answer choice C is similar. A less expensive campaign may have brought in fewer customers. That doesn't change anything about the campaign Dietz actually ran! Even if the campaign earned Dietz more customers than a less expensive campaign would have, the gain from the new customers is still lower than what Dietz spent on the campaign. A less expensive campaign may have been even less successful, but the campaign that actually happened still lost Dietz money.
Erika John - Content Manager/Lead Instructor
https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/
Get tutoring from me or another PrepScholar GMAT expert: https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/tutoring/
Learn about our exclusive savings for BTG members (up to 25% off) and our 5 day free trial
Check out our PrepScholar GMAT YouTube channel, and read our expert guides on the PrepScholar GMAT blog