Q9 - Executive: In order to add

[noah]

9. (E)
The conclusion of this argument, found in the last sentence, is that it would not be worthwhile to market certain herbal tinctures. This is based on the fact that a variety of medical publications have found that the tinctures are ineffective. It is important to remember that the executive stating all of this intended to market the tinctures in order to add to company profits, and he or she is concluding that because of the apparent lack of efficacy, marketing the tinctures will not lead to the hoped for profits. The executive is assuming, as (E) states, that the marketing of the tinctures will not be profitable because of the findings of the medical publications.

(A) is out of scope. There is no discussion of reliability.
(B) is irrelevant to the conclusion. Even if (B) were untrue, and the tinctures were effective regardless of the findings, the executive may be correct that the marketing would not prove profitable. Perhaps the public would be swayed by the publications’ findings.
(C) weakens the argument. If the publications are not a reason to determine profitability, then why is the executive discussing them?
(D) is out of scope. There is no discussion of adverse effects.

[hyewonkim89]

9. (E)
The conclusion of this argument, found in the last sentence, is that it would not be worthwhile to market certain herbal tinctures. This is based on the fact that a variety of medical publications have found that the tinctures are ineffective. It is important to remember that the executive stating all of this intended to market the tinctures in order to add to company profits, and he or she is concluding that because of the apparent lack of efficacy, marketing the tinctures will not lead to the hoped for profits. The executive is assuming, as (E) states, that the marketing of the tinctures will not be profitable because of the findings of the medical publications.

(A) is out of scope. There is no discussion of reliability.
(B) is irrelevant to the conclusion. Even if (B) were untrue, and the tinctures were effective regardless of the findings, the executive may be correct that the marketing would not prove profitable. Perhaps the public would be swayed by the publications’ findings.
(C) weakens the argument. If the publications are not a reason to determine profitability, then why is the executive discussing them?
(D) is out of scope. There is no discussion of adverse effects.

Hi Noah,

Thanks for such a clear explanation!

But I'm still having a bit of hard time understanding why E is the right answer.

I eliminated (E) because of reliable "authorities."

How are reliable medical publications same as reliable "authorities?"

Please help!

Thanks in advance!

[noah]

I eliminated (E) because of reliable "authorities."

How are reliable medical publications same as reliable "authorities?"

The Oxford English Dictionary can be referred to as the authority on spelling. It's OK to refer to a publication as an authority, and if you're not convinced, consider that those articles were written by people. Also, there is that advisory staff!

[hyewonkim89]

Thank you very much! I will remember that for future reference!

[yedamkim]

Hello

I eliminated C, D and E in virtue of a "new line of products."

Can you please explain why doing this is wrong? Otherwise, are there types of questions where such a strategy would be more appropriate?

Thank you!

[maryadkins]

I'm not sure what strategy you mean"”why didn't you like "new line of products?" The executive plans to "promote and distribute" a product to "add to" profit, so it's a new line of products...

[oscey12]

I got this question right, but it took more of my time than I would've liked (E just looked more attractive). I got caught up on C because the executive received input from both the publications AND members of his staff, so I thought that maybe publications alone wasn't sufficient. Is it because as someone said, C applies to a "new line of product?" Or is staff input just not a sufficient condition either way? Thanks!