求解 OG Diagnostic Test CR 34 （逻辑最后一题）

mars_gao

B选项，怎么会跟经济利益无关呢？ 是因为campaign才来的客户，买了别的东西。这不是说明它计算campaign的作用时忽略了这部分。不是weaken了argument吗？

labellor

I suggest that u'd better post the thorough question.

sdcar2010

Support LS.

I have no access to any OG or GO or JJ or things of that nature.

哩管仲

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.


帮10年的楼主完成心愿，B选项写的是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.

注意这里是WERE ALREADY，他们那些人早就是OTHER PRODUCT的死粉了，所以对于未来的经济利益是没用的！！！！如果他们之前不是死粉，之后买了罐头后，成了死粉，那么B选项就strengthen了！可惜！B选项不是这么写的！

哩管仲

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.


帮10年的楼主完成心愿，B选项写的是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.

注意这里是WERE ALREADY，他们那些人早就是OTHER PRODUCT的死粉了，所以对于未来的经济利益是没用的！！！！如果他们之前不是死粉，之后买了罐头后，成了死粉，那么B选项就strengthen了！可惜！B选项不是这么写的！

SKY-gaga

sdcar2010 发表于 2010-12-5 02:06
Support LS. I have no access to any OG or GO or JJ or things of that nature.

大神，你的解释我终于通了。。。。。

斩黑4

哩管仲 发表于 2014-6-25 12:32
34. A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year  ...

之后成为死粉好像也不是很对吧。。。。题目里面是other product 的死粉。。感觉这个答案自身就有逻辑问题