Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 24 Apr 2014, 14:38

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a

 Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 0

Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a [#permalink]  12 Apr 2010, 18:55
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

69% (02:07) correct 30% (01:10) wrong based on 43 sessions
Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however. The two products not only look alike, but they also work alike. Both are oddly shaped with identically placed control panels with the same types of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.
The main point of the argument is that
(A) The two products have many characteristics in common.
(B) ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design.
(C) The similarities between the two products are not coincidental.
(D) Product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other.
(E) New products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products.
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 170
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 64

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  13 Apr 2010, 04:30
IMO: A
_________________

But there’s something in me that just keeps going on. I think it has something to do with tomorrow, that there is always one, and that everything can change when it comes.
http://aimingformba.blogspot.com

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 298
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  13 Apr 2010, 04:59
ISB2011 wrote:
Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however. The two products not only look alike, but they also work alike. Both are oddly shaped with identically placed control panels with the same types of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.
The main point of the argument is that
(A) The two products have many characteristics in common.
(B) ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design.
(C) The similarities between the two products are not coincidental.
(D) Product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other.
(E) New products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products.

It has to be C.
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 12

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  13 Apr 2010, 06:31
The discussion in the passage is only on the two companies and the products they released, what are their silimarities and argue that it is not a conincidence.

My Option is C.
_________________

+1Kudos, if this helps

Retired Moderator
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 485
Location: Bangalore,India
WE 1: 4yrs in IT Industry
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 311

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  13 Apr 2010, 07:06
My vote is For C
_________________

One Final Try.......

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1564
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 161 [0], given: 6

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  13 Apr 2010, 17:08
would pick (C)
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2009
Posts: 127
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  14 Apr 2010, 05:19
ISB2011 wrote:
Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however. The two products not only look alike, but they also work alike. Both are oddly shaped with identically placed control panels with the same types of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.
The main point of the argument is that
(A) The two products have many characteristics in common.
(B) ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design.
(C) The similarities between the two products are not coincidental.
(D) Product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other.
(E) New products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products.

In main point questions, If the stem contains a conclusion then it is always reworded as an answer choice. The author has given the conclusion in this problem: The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however"

C says the same.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 455
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 5

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  14 Apr 2010, 06:59
+1 C

what's OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 250
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 16

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  16 Apr 2010, 04:04
selected C.

found the source and explanation as well:
Question #1. MP. October 2002 LSAT, Section #1, #2. The correct answer choice is (C)
Like the majority of Main Point question stimuli, the argument does not contain a traditional conclusion
indicator. Thus, you must look at the pieces of the argument in order to determine the point the author is
making. In this case, the conclusion is “The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence.” Use
the Conclusion Identification Methodology to help establish that point if you are unsure. The argument
uses the fact that the two workstations are similar and were released in the same timespan to assume that
the similarity is not caused by coincidence.
Answer choice (A): This is a repeat of a premise of the argument, not the main point. As mentioned in the
discussion, in Main Point questions you should expect to see incorrect answers that repeat premises from
the argument.
Answer choice (B): The statement does not pass the Fact Test. The scenario could be reversed: OCF could
have copied Ergotech. Regardless, this is not the main point.
Answer choice (C): This correct answer is a paraphrase of the conclusion.
Answer choice (D): This would undermine the argument and thus it cannot be the main point.
Answer choice (E): Although the author would likely agree with this statement, this does not capture the
main point, which addresses the two named products.
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 169

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  23 Dec 2010, 08:41
OA is C - OG12 problem
_________________

I will greatly appreciate your KUDOS my friends!

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 18

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  17 Jan 2011, 08:28
ISB2011 wrote:
Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however. The two products not only look alike, but they also work alike. Both are oddly shaped with identically placed control panels with the same types of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.
The main point of the argument is that
(A) The two products have many characteristics in common.
(B) ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design.
(C) The similarities between the two products are not coincidental.
(D) Product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other.
(E) New products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products.

The answer is C because of the above.
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam

Manager
Status: Struggling hard to maintain focus
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 122
Location: Kolkata
Schools: ISB, IIM
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 11

Re: Q2/TEST10-2002/1000CR [#permalink]  05 Sep 2011, 10:42
+1 C
_________________

* An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
** Every single second counts.
*** One KUDO earned is One step closer to GMAT. Help me in getting closer to GMAT.

Test Description_______Date____Total___Quant_____ Verbal
GMAT PREP1_____________________610
GMAX online test 1____29.07.2011__540_____43________19
MGMAT CAT 1_________03.09.2011__580____42________28
MGMAT CAT 2_________02.10.2011__690____48________36
GMAX online test 2_____16.10.2011__640____48________32
MGMAT CAT 3_________23.11.2011__670____47________34
Veritas free CAT______ 31.10.2011___630___ 46________33
MGMAT CAT 4_________06.11.2011__690____48________36
MGMAT CAT 5_________13.11.2011__660____46________34
MGMAT CAT 6_________19.11.2011__680____51________33
GMAT PREP2__________23.11.2011__680
GMAT Exam___________24.11.2011__690____50________34

Director
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 742
Followers: 114

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Re: Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a [#permalink]  26 Mar 2014, 09:37
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a   [#permalink] 26 Mar 2014, 09:37
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
At Happywell. Inc., last year the average annual salary for 8 06 Aug 2004, 22:52
At Happywell, Inc., last year the average annual salary for 9 02 Mar 2005, 16:45
What to do for the last 2 months before the test 0 22 Jun 2005, 18:07
At Happywell, Inc., last year the average annual salary for 6 02 Mar 2006, 11:03
3 Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a 7 19 Sep 2012, 23:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a

 Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.