BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Survey

Expert replies
by SmarpanGamt » Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:11 am
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
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by sk818020 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:49 pm
You could easily defeat the argument if the 10 percent of people that switched brands all switched to one brand. Then the advertising did have an effect and was important, if only for one company. The argument assumes that this is not the case. For this reason I would chose E, which summarized what I just said.

Could you please confirm the OA is E?

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Jared
Join the discussion

by this_time_i_will » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:19 pm
Join the discussion

by sk818020 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:11 pm
this_time_i_will wrote:i think D.
Please explain your reasoning.
Join the discussion

by Shawshank » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:06 am
SmarpanGamt 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
IMO -- D
The conclusion states " That the advertising is not helping due to only 10% people shifting brands of the 10% spent on advertising.
If the manufacturerers hold multiple brands then the shifting might be within brands that beliong to them itself. The numbers given above dont hold good.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...
Join the discussion

by paes » Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:07 am
IM D

as Shawshank explained.
Join the discussion

by paddle_sweep » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:09 pm
I will go with 'A'. Pls post OA.

Cheers
Join the discussion

by dkumar.83 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:41 am
I'll go with E.
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:08 pm
SmarpanGamt 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
tricky one!

IMO A

Is 10% of gross income of the entire industry worth spending on advertisements and promotions...............may be yes may be no...........depends on whether this 10% is actually is a big portion of the total cost incurred or not

If the industry spends 50% of the gross income as a overall cost to company, this 10% will be a small portions when compared to the overall costs.

Please give inputs on this analysis.
Join the discussion

by SmarpanGamt » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:12 am
FightWithGMAT wrote:
SmarpanGamt 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
tricky one!

IMO A

Is 10% of gross income of the entire industry worth spending on advertisements and promotions...............may be yes may be no...........depends on whether this 10% is actually is a big portion of the total cost incurred or not

If the industry spends 50% of the gross income as a overall cost to company, this 10% will be a small portions when compared to the overall costs.

Please give inputs on this analysis.

OA : E....:)
Join the discussion

by outreach » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:23 am
spending 10% of gross receipts is not worth because only 10% change brands.
now it is possible that 10% of gross receipts change for brand M.

E
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion