Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers' lines of pet-care products. Knowing that pet owners rarely...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers' lines of pet-care products. Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from their pet's veterinarian unread, one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients. Very few veterinarians accepted the offer, however, even though the manufacturer's products are of high quality.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the veterinarian's reaction to the manufacturer's promotional scheme?

Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer's pet-care products to their clients.

The special promotional materials were intended as a supplement to the manufacturer's usual promotional activities rather than as a replacement for them.

The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.

Many pet owners have begun demanding quality in products they buy for their pets that is as high as that in products they buy for themselves.

Veterinarians sometimes recommend that pet owners use products formulated for people when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers' lines of pet-care products.	What it says: Vets make money by selling pet products from different companies What it does: Sets up the business context for veterinarians What it is: Background information Visualization: If a vet makes $100,000/year, maybe $20,000-30,000 comes from selling pet products from 3-4 different manufacturers
Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from their pet's veterinarian unread, one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients.	What it says: Since pet owners read vet mail, one manufacturer offered free promotional materials for vets to mail out What it does: Introduces the manufacturer's marketing strategy that seems logical given pet owner behavior What it is: Description of the manufacturer's offer Visualization: Pet owner gets 10 pieces of mail - throws away 8, but always reads the 2 from their vet. Manufacturer thinks: "Perfect opportunity!"
Very few veterinarians accepted the offer, however, even though the manufacturer's products are of high quality.	What it says: Almost no vets took the deal, despite the products being good quality What it does: Presents the surprising outcome that contradicts what we'd expect from the logical setup What it is: The puzzling result that needs explanation Visualization: Out of 100 vets offered the deal, maybe only 5-10 said yes, even though the products are genuinely good

Argument Flow:

The passage sets up a business context where vets sell pet products, then describes what seems like a smart marketing offer from a manufacturer, but reveals an unexpected outcome where vets largely rejected this seemingly good deal.

Main Conclusion:

There's no explicit conclusion - this is a puzzle presenting a surprising outcome that needs explanation.

Logical Structure:

This isn't a typical argument with premises leading to a conclusion. Instead, it's a scenario that presents facts leading to a puzzling result: despite having a seemingly win-win offer (free materials, quality products, guaranteed readership), vets still said no. We need to find what explains this unexpected reaction.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Paradox - We need to explain why veterinarians rejected what seems like a great offer (free promotional materials from a quality manufacturer)

Precision of Claims

The key claims are about veterinarian behavior (very few accepted), product quality (high quality), and the business context (vets make money selling multiple manufacturers' products)

Strategy

Look for reasons why veterinarians would reject this offer despite it seeming beneficial. Think about potential conflicts of interest, business concerns, or practical issues that would make this offer unappealing to vets even though the products are good quality

Answer Choices Explained

Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer's pet-care products to their clients.

'Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer's pet-care products to their clients.' This doesn't explain the rejection at all. If vets were already selling these products, getting free promotional materials would help them sell even more - that would be a good thing for their business. This choice actually makes the rejection more puzzling, not less.

The special promotional materials were intended as a supplement to the manufacturer's usual promotional activities rather than as a replacement for them.

'The special promotional materials were intended as a supplement to the manufacturer's usual promotional activities rather than as a replacement for them.' This tells us about the manufacturer's broader marketing strategy but doesn't give vets any reason to reject free materials. Whether it's supplemental or replacement advertising doesn't matter to the vets - free promotional help should still be welcome.

The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.

'The manufacturer's products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.' This perfectly explains the paradox! If vets promote these products through mailings, they're essentially advertising products that customers can buy elsewhere - potentially more conveniently or cheaply. Since vets make money from selling products themselves, they have no incentive to promote products available in competing retail channels. This creates a clear business reason to reject the offer.

Many pet owners have begun demanding quality in products they buy for their pets that is as high as that in products they buy for themselves.

'Many pet owners have begun demanding quality in products they buy for their pets that is as high as that in products they buy for themselves.' This doesn't explain the rejection because the passage already states the manufacturer's products are high quality. If anything, this trend would make high-quality products more appealing to promote, not less.

Veterinarians sometimes recommend that pet owners use products formulated for people when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available.

'Veterinarians sometimes recommend that pet owners use products formulated for people when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available.' This is about a completely different scenario - when animal-specific products aren't available. The manufacturer in question makes pet-care products, so this choice is irrelevant to explaining why vets rejected the promotional offer.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...