An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability

I am not convinced with the reasoning presented for option B. Rest all can be eliminated easily.

Explanation:
---------------------------
(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970. ---> Irrelevant. We have to focus on durability.

(B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970. --->

(C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained. ---> What owners do is not important for the conclusion; what manufacturers do is important.

(D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles. ---> When I looked at option D, it was a clear no-no for me. There could be other reasons why automobiles by Deluxe motor are still on roads. Only because they are still on road does not mean that they are durable. IMO, any product's life is directly proportional to how you treat it. Anyone can keep a car running for several years by getting it serviced regularly. But then how come Deluxe Motor is still in business? Though their automobiles may not be durable, they might be very fuel efficient. Who knows?

(E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years. ---> Not convincing. A stable price of a product does not guarantee that the product is durable. Moreover, how many years should actually be considered as ‘recent’?
---------------------------

My option choice is B. Though I could easily discard all but B by process of elimination, I'm not convinced about its reasoning.

I know what matters finally is answer but if you have the correct and convincing reasoning, nothing better than that!

Eagerly waiting for some concrete reasoning…


Regards,
Technext

I will go for B as well.

An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Co cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer.

Which of the following strengthens the argument

A. After taking inflation into account, a new deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970.
Cost is not mentioned in the argument. We are taking about durability and number of vehicles on road. This one is out of scope.

B. The number of automobiles built by deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970
Suppose the company build 1,000 units each year till 2005(70,000 - Total) ,then 10,000 units each year till 2012(total 70,000) and the life of vehicle is only 5 years, then we can say the argument is invalid, as the evidence is deceiving(number of vehicles on road will be half of the vehicles manufactured since 1970). By saying that the number of units have not sharply increased, we can eliminate this possibility. So this is the correct option.

C. Owners of deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained
So deluxe automobile got lucky. This doesn't undermine the evidence.

D. Since 1970, Deluxe has made few changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles.
The argument is about durability. If they are still using same parts and the consumer is accepting, still there argument and evidence holds true.

E. Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years.
Again, out of scope.

I believe the passage doesn’t state that half of all automobiles on the road were produced by Deluxe. The passage states that “over half of all automobiles BUILT BY THE COMPANY since 1970 are still on the road today.” Therefore, I believe it is irrelevant how many cars were produced by Deluxe. I went with D only because it sounds better than B.

I am not convinced with any explanation give in this post. I have selected D over B. here is my reasoning.

B- What if population increased exponentially.I mean 25 yrs is a lot of time. this will suggest that demand will increase but they are not participating with this increase.

D - so same thing is working even now. they have not changed why? may be they don't need it. huge assumption. but anyways better choice then B

All we care about is durability. To what extent Deluxe is meeting demand is irrelevant.

Deluxe has produced some number of cars since 1970, and over half of those cars are still on the road. Manufacturer B has produced some number of cars since 1970, but only a third are still on the road.

For now, let's assume that the number of cars produced each year by each company has not significantly changed since 1970 (i.e. Deluxe produced X cars per year and Manufacturer B produced Y cars per year). The values of X and Y are irrelevant. Maybe Manufacturer B produced 10 times as many cars per year as Deluxe. Or maybe Deluxe produced more per year. Regardless, why are over a half of Deluxe's cars still on the road while only a third of B's cars are on the road? This data seems to suggest that Deluxe cars are more durable. The key in this example is that the AVERAGE AGE of cars produced by each company is approximately the same.

However, what if Deluxe dramatically increased production in the year 2008 while Manufacturer B kept production constant each year? In that case, the AVERAGE AGE of Deluxe's post-1970 cars would be much lower than the average age of B's post-1970 cars. In that case, it would not be fair to compare the proportion of cars still on the road from each company. We would expect a higher proportion of Deluxe's cars to be on the road because, on average, their cars are not as old.

Choice (B) tells us that this is NOT the case. Thus, (B) eliminates a scenario that would weaken the argument. Does (B) PROVE that Deluxe cars are more durable? Of course not--we could still think of scenarios that would contradict the author's logic. But that's not important. All we need to do is strengthen the author's argument. By addressing a possible counter-argument, (B) definitely strengthens the argument.

I marked D. I know I got it wrong. I just want to share a very interesting concept for solving CR.

In this CR, we are only talking about A particular company(Lets say X). We arent saying that X offers more durability than others. SO we only need to talk about factors that affect X and not about factors that compares X with Y(some other company).

hope it helps.

Hi Experts,
I have a doubt in option (b).
It says the number of automobiles built has not increased sharply.
My questions is isn't built different from sold? I have seen multiple questions like this and the language transition is of the trap laid by GMAT.
So what if they are built, and not sold? They won't count in number of cars running on road.
I am trying to eliminate answers based on language as well.

Yes, "built" is different from "sold."

But notice that the passage never mentions auto sales. The advertisement cites as evidence "the fact that half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today."

We don't need to know anything about how many Deluxe autos were sold to accept that half of all Deluxe autos built are still on the road today.

I hope this helps!

Hi ArtVandaley

D actually weakens the argument to a considerable degree. According to the advertisement, “durability” explains why over 50% Deluxe’s cars still run. To support the argument, we should eliminate any alternative explanation.

D could be that alternative we don’t want. Let’s consider the business model that car manufacturers employ to sell their cars. Every year, they try to introduce several sensible changes to their cars to temp you into buying a new car, or into changing your current car for the new one. If the new version of your car has minor modifications, you would rather keep yours well maintained for years until big changes happen.

Another good example is iphones. Most folks are reluctant to pay fortune for such minor yearly changes. Hence, they prefer to keep using the same model for at least 3 – 4 years. Indeed, frequent changes do matter.

So, if D were true and Deluxe made fewer changes, then probably most owners used their old cars NOT because they are durable, but because there was no point in buying a new one.

How come no one mentioned this?

Hi AndrewN

This one seems a little tricky. I am still struggling to get my head around as to why b is a better bet than D. I’d argue both do not really strengthen the argument unless we make some assumptions. So how to conclude which assumption is less far-fetched than other? Would love to know your thoughts on this one. Thank you!

Posted from my mobile device

Hello, Shikhar22. (B) is a much better answer than (D) because of the language used to qualify the information. Notice sharply in (B). This sort of adverbial qualifying word is quite typical of correct CR answers, as though GMAC™ wanted to make sure the correct answer would be harder to debate. (I discuss the issue more in this post in the last paragraph.) You should consider the relationship between the passage and what (B) says to see how they work together.

Evidence (passage): the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today

(B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970.

It would be a sleight of hand if the ad were produced by a company that had manufactured, say, 10,000 automobiles per year from 1970 to 1999 and then suddenly manufactured 1,000,000 automobiles in 2000 only to turn around and run the ad. Test the numbers to see what I mean:

\(10,000 * 30 = 300,000\)

If we consider an extreme here, perhaps all 300,000 automobiles manufactured between 1970 and 1999 were no longer on the road by the end of 2000, but more than 650,000, half of 1.3M, of the million automobiles that had just been produced were, in fact, still on the road today. Of course, we would expect them to be—they are new cars, after all. The evidence, while dubious with our newfound knowledge, could still be used to support the claim that automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company were highly durable. But (B) rules out this possibility. Sure, we do not know what, exactly, sharply may mean, but at least the type of case I have outlined above could NOT have happened, and this, in turn, would at least increase the likelihood that the argument was sound.

By contrast, (D) gives us no real qualifying language. Okay, so Deluxe has made fewer changes, but do changes necessarily translate to durability or a lack thereof? Who is to say that a forward-thinking automobile manufacturer that radically changed its designs from year to year could not also produce durable autos? Or, on the flip-side of this line of reasoning, who is to say that sticking with the same design leads to a product that is more durable? (Maybe the design was flawed to begin with, or the parts were simply cheaper to produce the same way from year to year.) You are correct in suggesting that we need to make a major assumption to qualify this answer choice—i.e. that fewer changes equates to greater durability. Luckily, GMAC™ has decided ahead of time to drop in a patent hint in an effort to over-qualify the correct answer. Remember to look for those adverbs for guidance.

I hope that helps with this tough question. Thank you for calling my attention to it.

- Andrew

ReedArnoldMPREP KarishmaB egmat GMATNinja EMPOWERgmatVerbal ExpertsGlobal5

option B talks about automobiles built not sold. We are concerned about automobiles on road i.e automobiles sold. How is B relevant in this sense?

Rickooreo - watch the video and see if it makes sense.

https://www.loom.com/share/dad50aba63f7 ... 5476a34a38

-Rajat

If Deluxe were just building automobiles but not selling them, they could not have survived. No business can survive on just making the product without selling. What would be the point? Sure there could be some loss of inventory but that cannot be substantial if the business is to survive.
So 'number of automobiles built since 1970' would be approximately equal to those sold (other than the current inventory and some loss they might have faced over the years). Compared to the number of automobiles made and sold over a span of 50 years, current inventory would be negligible.

If Deluxe claims that 50% of the cars they made since 1970 are still being used while only about 33% of other brand cars made since 1970 are being used, I would question whether a bigger chunk of their sales happened in the recent times. They could have made fewer cars in the initial years and more now. Then it may not be the good quality that is responsible for the 50% number.

Say Deluxe made only 100 cars each year in first 30 years and 1000 cars each year in the last 20 years.
Say company X made 500 cars every year since 1970.
Then a higher percentage of Deluxe's cars will still be on the road even if their quality is no better than that of company X!

Hence, answer (B)

Hi Kyle,
Please correct this portion of your explanation to help others.

I would've generally skipped through it.

An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer.

What is the heart of the question?

Deluxe's vehicles are so long-lasting that half of the vehicles made by Deluxe since the 1970s are still on the road.
Deluxe is an epitome of durability; and we have to strengthen this point.

Now, let's dissect each and every option.

A is gone because the cost and the inflation are the factors that were never discussed in the original question.

C is axed because if it's true then it's because of the maintenance done by the owners the vehicles are standing the test of time. But we need to strengthen that because the vehicles are made by Deluxe, they are durable.

Did the changes made by Deluxe boost the durability of the car? Is there any proof to support this? Hence, D is out of the window.

The prices of Deluxe have been stable. Being stable doesn't imply being cheap. Has the price stabilized at a high point or a low point? We don't know. Hence, annex E.

Now, let's analyze B.

If the number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970 then it can be implied that the company built 100 vehicles in the past and it's building roughly the same number of vehicles in the present.
If the vehicles of Deluxe were not very durable then the company would have had to increase its production sharply but it did not.
Clearly, B is the winner.



Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the advertisement’s argument?


(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970.

(B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970.

(C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained.

(D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles.

(E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years.

Posted from my mobile device

Understanding the argument
What is the goal here - to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company.
What is the plan here - cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer.

What could be a problem with the plan - what if 90% of the Deluxe Motor Car Company were produced in the last five years? Then, we can't achieve our goal as consumers may know we are comparing apples to oranges. We have to find an answer that takes care of this objection to the plan.

(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970. - costs are out of scope.

(B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970. - exactly.

(C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained. - it weakens as providing an alternate reason other than durability for for than 50% of vehicles still on the road.

(D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles. - changes are out of scope.

(E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years. - prices are out of scope