Critical Reasoning

Hi all,

I took the diagnostic test in OG 12 for Critical Reasoning, and found two questions in which the explanation seems a little strange to me. I don't really care if my reasoning or GMAT's reasoning is more "truthful" - instead, I want to figure out how the GMAT arrived at their answer, and what kind of assumptions they make, so I can keep these in mind for future questions.

Here's second question, the two answer choices I had it narrowed down to, and then the GMAT's reasoning of each one.

34) 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, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(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.

My reasoning: (E) isn't correct. "Economic interests" to me means "financial" + "interests", so it's about profits. The author's conclusion is that this advertising campaign didn't increase current profits, nor set it up for future profits. So the correct answer should show that the advertising campaign DID advance the economic interests of the company.

If E is true, just because Dietz managed to increase sales in an industry downturn is not necessarily a good idea, from a purely economic standpoint.

Suppose Dietz made $5 million in profit from this increase in sales. if they had done nothing, they would've made $5 million in less profit than the year before, so a $10 million difference. However, the ad campaign cost $40 million. In this scenario, Dietz lost $30 million, even though they increased sales in an industry down turn. Given these assumptions, it definitely did not further Dietz's economic interests, as the author says. So (E) does not necessarily weaken the argument.

(D) on the other hand states tuna overall made a profit. Meh, I couldn't find a compelling reason why this was a good answer, nor a bad answer lol.

GMAT reasoning: (D) is incorrect because "argument is not about profits only, but whether the advertising campaign contributed to the economic interests of the company".

What does the GMAT assume "economic interests" are of a company? Clearly, we are assuming something different, as GMAT thinks increasing sales during a downtown must advance a company's economic interests, even if it might bankrupt them .

Hi cbenk121,

you ask good and important questions. The rule for critical reasoning is no external information or assumptions. But they do expect us to know basic vocabulary and basic facts about the world (for example what direction "clockwise" means).

If you a think a term or phrase has multiple reasonable interpretations, you have to adopt the one that makes the most common sense.

Here, "economic interests" is a broader concept than simple profits. If they had meant for "economic intersts" to be interepreted as narrowly as "profits", then...they would have said "profits".

Ask yourself this: is the phrase "economic interests" capable of including things other than "profit"? Of course, it does. For example, prospects for growing in market x versus market x are considerations the company would be interested because it would affect their economic outlook in the future while it might not affect their current balance statement.

Notice how extreme the conclusion is: the sales did NOTHING for the company's economic interests. But if E is true, then it looks like the campaign may have protected the company from the economic downturn that its industry expereienced. Now how likely do you find the conclusion that the campaign did NOTHING to help the economic interests of the company?

Whereas choice D simply restates information that can be inferred from the passage.

Trust me, GMAT reasoning is the same as truthful reasoning. They check the questions over and over again (and then test them on students) to ensure there is no ambiguity, and to ensure that there is only one objectively correct answer. If that weren't the case, then there would be no basis upon which high scorers could be high scorers.

That makes sense; the conclusion was pretty strong (did nothing).

It's good to clear that up: economic interests means something broader than immediate profits.

Like I said, wasn't anything compelling about (D) but nothing that stood out about it as weakening. It's good to know that if I encounter that it in another question, a choice that doesn't seem to strengthen nor weaken, that it's probably not the correct choice...as the correct answer will CLEARLY strengthen or weaken (depending on stem).

Thanks!

I believe the answer should be D