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 campaign, consider whether the campaign was the most effective way to achieve the desired outcome.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the argument.
The argument concludes that the advertising campaign did not benefit Dietz Foods because profits from the additional sales were less than the cost of the campaign. To weaken the argument, we need evidence that the campaign was effective despite the costs.
Step 2: Analyzing the options.
- (A) This does not address the effectiveness of the advertising campaign or its impact on Dietz’s overall economic interests.
- (B) This weakens the argument by suggesting that the new customers were already loyal to Dietz products, so the campaign didn’t attract new customers to canned tuna.
- (C) This is the correct answer. If the campaign was the most cost-effective way to bring in new customers, it would suggest that the cost of the campaign was justified by the number of new customers.
- (D) This is not relevant because the focus is on new customers brought in by the campaign.
- (E) This does not address the specific impact of the campaign on Dietz’s tuna sales.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct answer is (C), as it shows that the campaign was the most effective way to attract new customers, justifying the cost.