-
cbenk121
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:34 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
- GMAT Score:760
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
.
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
.
