Question

gmat题目求解答！

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.
为什么D不对啊求解答

Answer 1

OG上面有解释啊，非常清楚“D, the argument is not about profits only, but about whether the advertising campaign contributed to the economic interest of the company" ,主要意思就是说没直接提到ECONOMIC INTEREST. 这里一定要注意，GMAT考的逻辑是美国人的逻辑和中国人不同，美国人很直接，不太会隐晦，做题时一定不要用中国人的思维。

追问

谢谢，不过只能给一个人，自学做gmat题目觉得思维真的很不一样

Answer 2

D:（公司从罐头上挣到钱了）和这个argument没有实质性联系根本没提广告的事，既没有weaken，有没有加强，（其实我承认仔细联想后，会对argument有一点点负面作用……但只是一点点），所以不对，因为题目要求的是对这个argument负面作用最大的一项，也就是说，点明广告重要性的那一项。

因为argument是，广告是毫无作用的。
其中B是支持argument的
ADE都是没有明显表示出支持反对的，内容和广告这个关键词关系不大
按本人的思路我会选C
因为C说，如果没有广告，那么顾客会少很多，明显表示出了广告的作用，反对了argument

希望有所帮助，请采纳哦，O(∩_∩)O谢谢