求解OG 17的82题，关于canned tuna广告效应的

小泡Filo

34. 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.

似乎E是最合适的，但我也实在无法排除C选项，为什么C不对呢，便宜的广告带来的新顾客少，不正是说明了广告有用吗

Fiona09

因：1）随着广告投放，销售量增长，新顾客增加； 2）利润小于在广告上的投入

果：广告对公司利润没有帮助

选项分析：

C项说广告如果花钱少的话，带来的新客户也会少很多，但是，这个其实无法说明广告是有用的，因为没有涉及到利润和cost！万一addition sales还是低于广告cost呢？

E显而易见是正确的，因为整个行业的sales都在下降，如果没有广告的话，sales很有可能会much less than 10 million units。

gxyhappyyes

Fiona09 发表于 2016-12-29 18:19
因：1）随着广告投放，销售量增长，新顾客增加； 2）利润小于在广告上的投入

果：广告对公司利润没有帮助 ...

同意！