There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet marke

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

As always, the key to success is to isolate the conclusion, which appears in the last sentence: “companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors.” As you should have noted while reading, the conclusion contains a conditional indicator and is thereby conditional in nature. The conclusion can be diagrammed as: GMS = gain market share in the carpet market, PC = purchasing competitors. GMS
PC. According to the author, to gain market share in the carpet market a company must purchase a competitor. Answer choice (C) is often selected by students, but it does not attack this idea. To attack a conditional statement you must show that the necessary condition is not actually necessary for the sufficient condition to occur. Answer choice (C) simply suggests that when companies purchase their competitors the endeavor is often financially unsuccessful. Essentially, answer choice (C) fails to prove that purchasing competitors is unnecessary to gain market share. Answer choice (D), on the other hand, does suggest a way for companies to gain market share without purchasing competitors, thereby attacking the conditional statement given in the stimulus. Thus, answer choice (D) is correct.

Answer choice (A): This answer goes beyond the scope of the argument, which is limited to the carpet market (and not other floor coverings).

Answer choice (B): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the argument. If there are no remaining niches to fill, then there is no way to expand other than to purchase a competitor.

Answer choice (C): This attractive answer is wrong for two very strong reasons: 1. A Shell Game is played with the details of the conclusion. The conclusion is about market share. Answer choice (C) is about a decline in profits and revenues. The two are not the same, and so the information in the answer choice does not weaken the conclusion. 2. Even if you assume that market share is the same thing as profits and revenues, a second Shell Game is played because the answer then attacks a conclusion that is similar but different than the given conclusion. If the conclusion were as follows: PC
GMS, then answer choice (C) would be correct (again, assuming market share is the same thing as profits and revenues). But, the above is a Mistaken Reversal of the conclusion, and so the attack is made on a statement that uses the same terms as the conclusion but puts them in a different relationship. This is a great example of the cleverness displayed by the test makers. Fortunately you can avoid this answer if you know what to look for when attacking conditional reasoning. One point worth noting is that it is no accident that the most tempting wrong answer choice appears just before the correct answer.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. If price reductions drive out some of the carpet producers, then other producers can take the market share left behind. This scenario shows that a company can gain market share without purchasing a competitor, thus attacking the necessary condition in the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This Opposite answer strengthens the argument. If the consumers are resistant to new styles, then one fewer possibility exists if a company is trying to increase market share. By eliminating this option, the conclusion is strengthened (by eliminating an idea that would hurt the argument, one can strengthen the argument because it has fewer “competitors.”).