-
neerajkumar1_1
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 270
- Thanked: 24 times
IMO E.
There is no information to support that the campaign was successful whereas other options directly gives info about drop in sales.
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Beer Consumption
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
https://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/
https://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/
IMO:E (Also 3 years back a program was started, but effects started showing only in the last 2 years, so a little disconnect is there).
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
neerajkumar1_1
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 270
- Thanked: 24 times
I feel it should be C..
I felt that with option E.. The given campaign could have been successful..
But since the price have been constant for the past decade.. The government's decision to use an expensive product is still consistent with the premise that the price was constant for the past decade..
Hope u guyz can clarify it...
I felt that with option E.. The given campaign could have been successful..
But since the price have been constant for the past decade.. The government's decision to use an expensive product is still consistent with the premise that the price was constant for the past decade..
Hope u guyz can clarify it...
Answer should be E.
The stem already says that the consumption has been 'steadily' on the rise. Which means that the campaign had no significant impact on the overall beer consumption.
This makes E useless information from the question's point of view and hence it satisfies the EXCEPT clause as it does nothing to explain the fall in profits.
The stem already says that the consumption has been 'steadily' on the rise. Which means that the campaign had no significant impact on the overall beer consumption.
This makes E useless information from the question's point of view and hence it satisfies the EXCEPT clause as it does nothing to explain the fall in profits.
-
chris@magoosh
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 88
- Thanked: 54 times
@neerajkumar - the argument clearly states that beer consumption has increased. So a program started three years ago
to alert people to the perils of alcoholism clearly did not lead to a decrease in consumption. Maybe it was successful in
some regard, there were fewer new converts to beer, but all that is irrelevant. Beer consumption increased, but beer sales
went down. Why? Only (E) fails to resolve this paradox.
Hope that helps
.
to alert people to the perils of alcoholism clearly did not lead to a decrease in consumption. Maybe it was successful in
some regard, there were fewer new converts to beer, but all that is irrelevant. Beer consumption increased, but beer sales
went down. Why? Only (E) fails to resolve this paradox.
Hope that helps
.-
neerajkumar1_1
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 270
- Thanked: 24 times
the premise that beer consumption increased does clarify the answer.
thanks a ton..
thanks a ton..
chris@magoosh wrote:@neerajkumar - the argument clearly states that beer consumption has increased. So a program started three years ago
to alert people to the perils of alcoholism clearly did not lead to a decrease in consumption. Maybe it was successful in
some regard, there were fewer new converts to beer, but all that is irrelevant. Beer consumption increased, but beer sales
went down. Why? Only (E) fails to resolve this paradox.
Hope that helps
