Top Law Schools

I can vaguely see why (D) is the answer. Is the arguments errors in reasoning due to the fact that the it takes for granted the survey results and assumes that it doesn't need the to advertise b/c it already dominates the market? In other words, is the claim that Harrold Foods already dominates the market--according to the survey-- constitute enough evidence for us to believe that, and that putting to play a costly advertsing campaign would not be good?

A bit of explanation on why (D) is the answer please. Thanks beforehand

It sounds like you've got it. An analogous argument would be this:

Anyone who is found to be 70% above their recommended weight should go on a diet. But Patty feels like she is only 50% overweight, so she does not have to go on a diet.

The problem? Patty may be wrong! Similarly, the survey is just of consumers opinions. But the rule ("Since any product . . .") is based on hard data about market share.

Tell me if that doesn't do it for you.