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.

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

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.

NM

you're welcome!