CR: Fastfood King

[D]

Below is a question from MGMAT's CAT exam:

In January of last year, Fastfood King started using a new lowfat oil to cook its Fast Fries, instead of the less healthful corn oil that it had been using. Now Fastfood King is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt sales of Fast Fries. However, this claim is incorrect, since according to Fastfood King’s own sales figures, Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim?
A) Total sales of all foods at Fastfood King’s locations increased by less than 10 percent last year.
B) Fastfood King enjoys higher profit margins on its Soft Drinks than it does on Fast Fries.
C) Fastfood King’s customers prefer the taste of Fast Fries cooked in corn oil to Fast Fries cooked in lowfat oil.
D) The number of customers that visited Fastfood King locations was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
E) The year before last, Fastfood King experienced a 20 percent increase in Fast Fries sales over the previous year.

Could you please let me know why answer choice A (the correct answer) is preferable to answer choice C?

Thanks.

[Captain]

Hi D,
I am giving it a try just to check if my understanging is correct. (This is also a good practice for AWA :wink: )
Here we have to give evidence "most strongly supports the argument against Fastfood King's claim"
The argument against the fast food chain is - "Fastfood King sold 10 percent more Fast Fries last year than in the previous year"
ie. we have to find support against Fastfood King's that the oil switch hurt sales.
What can support the above statement? Lets take each option
A) If sales increase of other food is less then 10% then fries sold better than other foods. This contradicts the claim the oil switch (by itself) hurt sales. In fact it says that Oil switch actually increased the consumption of Fries wrt other food at Fastfood king.
B) is irrelevant here
C) Taste preference is not discussed
D) This is a tough one. But the no. of customers who visited the joint may or maynot contribute to increased sales.
E) This option actually supports Fastfood king's claim that sales decreases after the new oil was introduced.
Thus A is the correct answer

[StaceyKoprince]

Please read (and follow!) the guidelines. Your subject should be the first 5 to 8 words of the problem.

You're getting sucked into "real-world" thinking on this one. :)

The customers may prefer the taste of corn-oil-fries to the taste of lowfat-oil-fries. This does not necessarily mean that they will NOT buy the lowfat-oil-fries as much as they used to buy the corn-oil-fries (= hurt sales). We don't necessarily know anything about BUYING habits just because we know something about TASTE preferences. Maybe they'd actually prefer to buy the lowfat-oil-fries because those fries are healthier, even though they like the taste of the other ones better. The argument would have to tell us something like: taste preference is the predominate determination when making a buying decision. Otherwise, we don't know anything about how a taste preference would / could translate into a buying decision.

The argument says that:
1) fact: started using lowfat oil at beginning of last year
2) fact: sold 10% more fries last year (lowfat oil) than year before (corn oil)
3) BUT store claims that sales have been hurt by use of lowfat oil

Author's conclusion: store's claim is incorrect b/c of premise #2

How to support author's claim? Show that the percentage increase for fries is better than the general increase in revenues for everything - so, the fries can't have "hurt" sales because their growth rate is better than the general growth rate for the whole company. And that's what choice A says.

[D]

NM

[StaceyKoprince]

you're welcome!

[pradeepchandy]

one question why is D wrong
Explanation says that
"The fact that Fastfood King was visited by 20 percent more people last year suggests that consumption of Fast Fries, which increased by only 10 percent, may have been adversely affected by the change. This would weaken the conclusion, not strengthen it. "

My question

20% increase in people visiting can show that more people came to eat fries because they thought its healthier. Why does explanation say its weakens the conclusion?

Is it necessary that 20% increase in number of people should lead to 20% increase in sales - anything less is considered adverse?

[tim]

Hi Pradeep,
Well, let’s say you’re right that 20% more people came to the store because they thought it would be awesome to eat healthy fries. The fact remains that fries sales increased only 10%, so SOMETHING got in the way and prevented the fries sales from keeping pace with the additional foot traffic. Thus the argument that the 10% increase means the fries are a good idea is weakened..

[elevinty]

can someone pls explain to me how E is out of scope?
I thought E could be the right answer
if 2 years ago the fries sales went up by 20% and last year the sales went up by 10% = this would show that the fries is profitable and it supports the conclusion
am I missing something here?

[tim]

E is not necessarily out of scope. What it does is show that one year's performance wasn't as good as the year before in some sense. Somehow the fries performed worse the second year than they did in the first, and this could be due to the change. Thus E could be seen to support the restaurant's claim, which is the exact opposite of what we want..