还没有登录哦！
[Critical Reasoning]
试题详情
题目：
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?
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
选项:
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.
答案:
E
提问：
看了答案可以明白，能解释下是如何想到这个逻辑的吗
解答：
点赞0
阅读2576
提问：
请英吉老师解答！
这题我主要关注的是原文结论部分，这里说到活动不会给公司带来“进一步的利润”，这个further对我产生了很大影响。因此我认为选B是不可能错的，因为新顾客变成了忠实顾客，说明有可能带来远期的收益，完全符合削弱结论；而E说的是过去每年其他家都在降，而原文这家起码升了，可这带来的是已有的、既定受益，和further扯不上关系啊。
解答：
点赞1
阅读2516
提问：
理解了E选项，但能不能分析一下AD选项。谢谢！
解答：
点赞0
阅读2639
提问：
看了答案可以明白，能解释下是如何想到这个逻辑的吗
解答：
点赞0
阅读2577
问个问题
注册太麻烦？点这里查看免费答疑吧！
博币不足
加"GMAT小百科"小智微信
直接送200
