Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming

shoppers who shop regularly at a given supermarket generally choose that store for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often -> thus the stuff bought at Foodbasket was less than Shopperking, thus folks who usually buy at shopperking buy there because of the low cost of items and thus they cannot save any money if they buy the same at Foodbasket.

hope this helps

I get A too..basically..it says that people will go to the other supermarket cause there might certain items there wich are cheaper..

https://gmatclub.com/forum/11-t64443

"A
Since people who went to foodbasket usually buy certain items they know is cheaper than the other store. And shopper who shops at shopperking will buy a certain selection of items that averages to be cheaper than the ones at foodbasket.


Report this post"

+1 to poster, very confusing between A and B.

I would go for A.
Since the survey is primarily a comparison of the items bought in Foodbasket(FB) supermarket against Shopperking(SK) supermarket. Even after publishing the survery, if people continue to buy things at SK, then the price of the items bought in SK should be cheaper when compared against FB which is not covered in the survey.

B --> Gaint leap, beyond what is given.
C --> Not relevant
D --> Not relevant
E --> Not relevant

Even the price of the vey same items at ShopperKing totally averaged higher than the FoodBasket totals, it doesn't show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money by shopping at FoodBasket instead. Because this survey was among the shoppers of FoodBasket. According Answer A, the shoppers of FoodBasket choose FoodBasket for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often. That means this survey result is biased. If the same survey are making among the shoppers of ShopperKing, the result may be contrary with the current one due to the reason raised by Answer A.

even i'll go with A....
explanation is the same as posted by other members....

I too go with A.

In the Premise, comparision is between total prices but if you choose particular/certain items, they may be cheaper at SK than FB.

but if every product is cheaper at FB than at SK, you could save money shopping at FB, dont you?

I will go with "A"

dont have anything to explain since it is already explained by the people

Whats OA

I too fell for it and selected B but its a very tempting trap answer. One primary reason i can see is the keywords *more than 20 items*. I don't think there is a mention of quantity of items in the premises.

Following link explains it clearly. More importantly, it asserts the need to have 'common sense'. Check it out:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/res ... 10758.html

The contention is between only A and B .
B can be eliminated because it says the addidition of 20 items (20 is completely irrelevant and use to confuse the reader ) results in lower prices (sorry for the passive voice )but the fact is that the comparison is made only ater the addidition of some items ,the number does not matter .
A is completely logical !!
_________________

The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total.

Now option A says that "... low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often"
suppose there are 4 such items.. with my argument i can conseider tht those 4 items in Sking also cost same. If low here, then low there and vice versa

A can be the answer only by POE not logic, if I follow each statement of argument. Pls explain the ambiguity

Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. The ShopperKing totals averaged five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals. Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since ______.


Premise :
1. For set of Items, Prices at shopper King (5% higher) > Prices at Food basket.

Conclusion:
Shoppers at ShopperKing would not save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket.

Pre- thinking :
what can make this contradictory situation come true ? First thing that comes to my mind is what if the survey is not proper.
Say person X bought , Item A at 100 from food basket and same item A is 105 in shopper king. this "SAMPLE" does not prove that shopper king is overall costly, item A might be outlier etc.



POE

A. shoppers who shop regularly at a given supermarket generally choose that store for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often
This is inline with prethinking, If this is true then the survey is not valid. (if you take same survey outside of Shopperking you will get inverse result) Hence conclusion based on survey is not valid - Correct

B. for shoppers with more than 20 items, the ShopperKing totals averaged more than five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals
This is already stated in the argument, it is just a restatement of the premise. - incorrect

C. many shoppers consider factors other than price in choosing the supermarket at which they shop most regularly
there might be countless other factors, based on which customer choose the shop. But we should focus on only factor that is price. - Out of scope - Incorrect

D. there is little variation from month to month in the overall quantity of purchases made at supermarkets by a given shopper
(Same as C) Quantity is not discussed, we are concerned about the price - Out of scope - incorrect

E. none of the people who conducted the research were employees of the FoodBasket supermarket
(Strong and attractive option)- Argument has not mentioned how shop differentiated price for employees and general customer. So based on this, we will not be able to raise question on conclusion. We need something extra say "Shops gives 20% discount for employees" , to raise the questions on conclusion.
Incorrect.

Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. The ShopperKing totals averaged five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals. Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since ______.


Premise :
1. For set of Items, Prices at shopper King (5% higher) > Prices at Food basket.

Conclusion:
Shoppers at ShopperKing would not save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket.

Pre- thinking :
what can make this contradictory situation come true ? First thing that comes to my mind is what if the survey is not proper.
Say person X bought , Item A at 100 from food basket and same item A is 105 in shopper king. this "SAMPLE" does not prove that shopper king is overall costly, item A might be outlier etc.



POE

A. shoppers who shop regularly at a given supermarket generally choose that store for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often
This is inline with prethinking, If this is true then the survey is not valid. (if you take same survey outside of Shopperking you will get inverse result) Hence conclusion based on survey is not valid - Correct

B. for shoppers with more than 20 items, the ShopperKing totals averaged more than five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals
This is already stated in the argument, it is just a restatement of the premise. - incorrect

C. many shoppers consider factors other than price in choosing the supermarket at which they shop most regularly
there might be countless other factors, based on which customer choose the shop. But we should focus on only factor that is price. - Out of scope - Incorrect

D. there is little variation from month to month in the overall quantity of purchases made at supermarkets by a given shopper
(Same as C) Quantity is not discussed, we are concerned about the price - Out of scope - incorrect

E. none of the people who conducted the research were employees of the FoodBasket supermarket
(Strong and attractive option)- Argument has not mentioned how shop differentiated price for employees and general customer. So based on this, we will not be able to raise question on conclusion. We need something extra say "Shops gives 20% discount for employees" , to raise the questions on conclusion.
Incorrect.

Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. The ShopperKing totals averaged five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals. Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since ______.


Premise :
1. For set of Items, Prices at shopper King (5% higher) > Prices at Food basket.

Conclusion:
Shoppers at ShopperKing would not save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket.

Pre- thinking :
what can make this contradictory situation come true ? First thing that comes to my mind is what if the survey is not proper.
Say person X bought , Item A at 100 from food basket and same item A is 105 in shopper king. this "SAMPLE" does not prove that shopper king is overall costly, item A might be outlier etc.



POE

A. shoppers who shop regularly at a given supermarket generally choose that store for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often
This is inline with prethinking, If this is true then the survey is not valid. (if you take same survey outside of Shopperking you will get inverse result) Hence conclusion based on survey is not valid - Correct

B. for shoppers with more than 20 items, the ShopperKing totals averaged more than five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals
This is already stated in the argument, it is just a restatement of the premise. - incorrect

C. many shoppers consider factors other than price in choosing the supermarket at which they shop most regularly
there might be countless other factors, based on which customer choose the shop. But we should focus on only factor that is price. - Out of scope - Incorrect

D. there is little variation from month to month in the overall quantity of purchases made at supermarkets by a given shopper
(Same as C) Quantity is not discussed, we are concerned about the price - Out of scope - incorrect

E. none of the people who conducted the research were employees of the FoodBasket supermarket
(Strong and attractive option)- Argument has not mentioned how shop differentiated price for employees and general customer. So based on this, we will not be able to raise question on conclusion. We need something extra say "Shops gives 20% discount for employees" , to raise the questions on conclusion.
Incorrect.

What A is basically stating is that shoppers gravitate towards a particular store, like Walmart, to buy specific items. So shopper A goes to Walmart to buy pencils, pens, paper and highlighters. Now, those items are more expensive at Target as proven by the study. However, Target has cheaper organic food and cheaper electronics.

A

The answer choice B is doing the opposite of what we are looking for. This is explaining how shopping at ShopperKing is expensive.

A would be the right pick as it explains the reason how shopping at ShopperKing might be beneficial to the customer