A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with factual background about an ad campaign, then presents evidence showing the campaign successfully increased sales through new customers. However, it then reveals that the campaign cost more than the extra profits generated. From this cost-benefit comparison, it concludes the campaign provided no economic benefit.
Main Conclusion:
The advertising campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses a simple cost-benefit analysis: since the immediate campaign costs exceeded the immediate extra profits from additional sales, the author concludes there was no economic benefit. This logic assumes that only immediate, direct profit comparisons matter and ignores potential long-term benefits from the new customers acquired.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that the campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests
Precision of Claims
The conclusion makes a very strong claim using 'did nothing' - this absolute language means we need to show ANY economic benefit beyond just the immediate profit comparison
Strategy
The argument only looks at immediate costs vs immediate profits from extra sales. We can weaken this by showing the campaign provided OTHER economic benefits that weren't considered in this narrow analysis. We should look for long-term benefits, indirect benefits, or strategic advantages that would make the campaign economically worthwhile despite the short-term cost.
This choice tells us that tuna sales are a small part of Dietz's overall profits. However, this doesn't weaken the argument about whether the tuna campaign helped Dietz's economic interests. Even if tuna is a small part of their business, the argument's logic about the campaign's cost-benefit analysis would still hold. The campaign either helped economically or it didn't - the relative size of the tuna business doesn't change that evaluation.
This tells us that most new tuna customers were already buying other Dietz products. While this might suggest some customer loyalty benefits, it actually could strengthen the argument that the campaign wasn't economically beneficial. If they were already loyal Dietz customers, the company wasn't really expanding its customer base significantly - they were just getting existing customers to buy one more product at a loss.
This choice suggests that a cheaper campaign would have brought in fewer customers. But this doesn't help weaken the conclusion. Even if a cheaper campaign would have been less effective, that doesn't prove the expensive campaign they chose was economically beneficial. The argument's core claim is that this particular campaign cost more than it generated in profits, and this choice doesn't address that fundamental issue.
Stating that Dietz made money on tuna sales doesn't weaken the argument. The argument already acknowledges there were profits from additional sales - the problem is that these profits were 'substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign.' Making money overall on tuna doesn't change the fact that the campaign itself generated less profit than it cost.
This provides game-changing context by revealing that the entire tuna industry experienced steep declines over the past five years. If everyone else was losing sales dramatically, then Dietz's 20% increase from 10 million to 12 million cans becomes a huge success story. Without the campaign, Dietz might have suffered the same steep declines, potentially losing millions in sales and profits. This means the campaign likely prevented much larger economic losses, making it economically beneficial despite its immediate cost. This directly contradicts the conclusion that the campaign did nothing for Dietz's economic interests.