Question

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?

• A. Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods' profits.
• B. Most of the people who bought Dietz's canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products.
• C. A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz's canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year.
• 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.

Hint:

When evaluating the success of a business action, always consider the market context. An outcome that looks mediocre in a growing market might be a huge success in a declining market. Arguments that ignore this context are often flawed.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the Argument
The argument evaluates the success of an advertising campaign based on a narrow, short-term financial analysis.
Premise 1: A campaign for tuna cost \$X.
Premise 2: The campaign generated 2 million additional sales.
Premise 3: The profit from these 2 million sales was substantially less than \$X.
Conclusion: The campaign did nothing to further Dietz's economic interests.
Assumption: The argument assumes that the only economic benefit of the campaign is the immediate profit from the additional sales generated in that one year. It ignores any other potential benefits, such as long-term customer loyalty, brand image, or impact on sales in a declining market.

Step 2: Analyzing the Task
We need to weaken the conclusion. This means we need to find a reason why the campaign did further Dietz's economic interests, even though the immediate profit did not cover the campaign's cost. We are looking for an overlooked economic benefit.

Step 3: Evaluating the Options
(A) The proportion of profit from tuna is irrelevant. The argument is about whether this specific campaign was a good investment for the company's overall economic interests, regardless of how big a part of the business tuna is.
(B) This would weaken the argument, but not as strongly as other options. If the new tuna customers were already buying other Dietz products, the campaign might be seen as strengthening brand loyalty across the board. However, it's also possible these customers simply shifted their spending from one Dietz product to another, yielding no net gain for the company. The effect is ambiguous.
(C) Comparing the campaign to a hypothetical, less effective one doesn't prove that the actual campaign was economically beneficial. It just suggests it was better than a cheaper alternative.
(D) The fact that Dietz "made money" (i.e., had a positive profit margin) on tuna sales is already implied by the premise that there were "profits from the additional sales." This doesn't weaken the core claim that these profits were too small to justify the campaign's cost.
(E) This option provides a crucial context that the argument ignores. If the entire industry is in a steep decline, then simply maintaining sales would be a success. Dietz didn't just maintain sales; they increased them by 20% (from 10M to 12M cans). Without the campaign, it is highly likely that Dietz's sales would have followed the industry trend and declined sharply. By running the campaign, Dietz not only avoided a significant loss in sales but actually achieved growth. This represents a huge economic benefit that goes far beyond the simple profit-on-additional-sales calculation. Therefore, the campaign was very much in Dietz's economic interest.
Step 4: Final Answer
Option (E) is the correct answer because it reframes the outcome of the campaign. Instead of a simple failure to turn a short-term profit, the campaign becomes a major success in reversing a steep market decline, thus protecting and furthering Dietz's economic interests in a significant way.