The underlying assumption here is that major articles are directly correlated to revenues. We have no reason to believe that the industry actually works that way, so there are many possible ways to weaken the argument. There are many new ideas that, if true, would break the feeble connection between the premise and the conclusion in this argument. Here are a few that would work:
1) Major articles are typically written about brands that fashion journalists find new and exciting, and sales volume has little influence in such matters.
2) Only revenue from new designs influences what brands get written about, and most of the company's revenue this year is from old designs.
3) Fashion companies with revenue of more than $10 million a year are seen as "too corporate" by fashion journalists, and are not often featured in major articles.
4) No company is featured in more than one major article per month.
I'm sure you can think of plenty more along these lines. So what about C? That seems tempting. If all the journalism action is in New York, maybe efforts in Milan will not get much attention. But we have to be careful here. The choice just says that the fashion press is mostly *headquartered* in New York. That tells us nothing about what coverage they provide in Milan. Besides, a few journalists in Milan might be able to produce 20 major articles on their own! We just don’t have enough information.
E, on the other hand, provides some new information. The company’s new lines are not of great interest to fashion journalists. Therefore they may not be featured in many articles, and we certainly have no reason to believe that they will be featured four times as often as last year. E weakens the argument.
Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York
Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews