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

It is currently 02 Aug 2014, 00:44

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Eternal Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 480
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail  [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2003, 12:44
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

82% (03:30) correct 18% (01:26) wrong based on 3 sessions
. The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail
business, in which many small firms have gone out
of business, has been attributed to the advent of
office equipment тАЬsuperstoresтАЭ whose high sales
volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is
flawed, however, since even today the superstores
control a very small share of the retail market.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken
the argument that the analysis is flawed?
(A) Most of the larger customers for office
equipment purchase under contract directly
from manufacturers and thus do not participate
in the retail market.
(B) The superstoresтАЩ heavy advertising of their low
prices has forced prices down throughout the
retail market for office supplies.
(C) Some of the superstores that only recently
opened have themselves gone out of business.
(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are
owned by large retailing chains that also own
stores selling other types of goods.
(E) The growing importance of computers in most
offices has changed the kind of office
equipment retailers must stock.

Stem of argument: I am just guessing on the things the test is thinking.
Small sales store goes out of business due to superstore high sales and low price. This analysis is flawed because superstores sell only so much or control little market share. Other words, low prices affect small stores slightly.

Question asks us to find something to strengthen the analysis or weaken the argument on the analysis.

1) I think it is easy after looking at answer now but wasn't easy when I attempted problem.

B) Superstores low prices affect everyone. I guess the reason this question is hard it does not really attack the question directly because regardless of the low prices the superstores market share is still small. Or is it legal that I can say the superstores forcing prices down means it is gaining market share. Is there an assumption here?

I'll leave the rest to Stolyar or any other self-proclaimed CR experts.



Here it is: it's okay to weaken an assumption.

Today we were supposed to learn that the assumption of an argument is

┬╖ a bridge (link) between the evidence and the conclusion of an argument

┬╖ never stated in the text

┬╖ is the most vulnerable element of an argument

┬╖ is the only element in the argument that can be influenced

┬╖ should be easy for you to find by now

Last edited by Curly05 on 25 Jul 2003, 05:50, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Posts: 213
Location: Maryland
Followers: 2

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

GMAT Tests User
Ans [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2003, 13:21
I like (A)

The arguement is based on the assumption that the large stores are putting the little guys out of business by controlling the retail market.
However, (A) states that they are keeping their sales volume high and prices low by selling outside of the retail market.

Thus, the reasoning that big stores are not putting the little guys out of business based on the evidence that they are not controlling a large share of the retail market is flawed, since there are other ways to keep volume high outside of the retail market.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 334
Location: Uruguay
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2003, 13:52
I think B is correct.

The story is:
Little guys are out of business because of low prices. And it's the big guys' fault because they sell high volumes.

The argument:
Big guys are not responsible for low prices because they have a small share of the market.

We are supposed to find something that weakens the argument (in favor of the story).

B) Big guys keep prices down because of the advertising, whether or not they sell a lot.
Eternal Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 480
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Kent State Univ [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2003, 15:02
Can we attack the assumption of argument?

Small stores have been able to keep prices high.

Now, they can't because of Staples Advertising.

KSU Vic
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1613
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2003, 22:21
Pay attention to the conclusion we have to attack.

This analysis is FLAWED, however, since even today the superstores
control a very small share of the retail market.

Since we need to prove it weak, we have to show that this analysis is NOT FLAWED, but correct instead.

The recent upheaval in retail business IS REALLY CAUSED BY the advent of office equipment “superstores”.

(B) seems to do the best job.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5253
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
 [#permalink] New post 14 Aug 2006, 23:24
Taking (B) over A here because we have no idea how much of the total market share is occupied by the larger consumers.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 15 Aug 2006, 11:17
B attacks the conclusion (that big players are not the culprits because they own a relatively small share of the market) by saying the big guys have created a downward thrust on the prices due to aggro advertising that the smaller fries can't catch up with.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 66
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 10

 [#permalink] New post 15 Aug 2006, 11:40
I go with "B"

The question is tricky.
the argument is based on LOW prices are responsible for ...., but if "B" is true, the argument is still strue, but it weakens the reasoning on which it is based on because now there is an additional reason to support the argument and so the initial reasoning "LOW prices are responsible for ..." is weakened.
This is a good example of weaking an argument by providing a stronger strong argument.

OA please ?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 14
Followers: 0

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 15 Aug 2006, 19:45
Go with A, because it says most of the big contacts does not come to either shops or supermarkets. Total market size is small and supermarkets hold major part of that. i.e. Lets assume.

60% Contarcts out of market.
30% Supermarkets
10% Small shops.

If 60 percent is out, then supermarkets hold 75% of market share and are in good position to change the market pricing.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 291

Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail [#permalink] New post 02 Dec 2013, 07:06
Oh Man!!!! Now I got what the correct answer is all about. B is saying that as the retail prices have gone down all over the market small firms are unable to sustain because of less profitability. Hence the analysis is not flawed. :wall got a headache trying to solve this one.
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail   [#permalink] 02 Dec 2013, 07:06
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, govinam 15 14 Sep 2006, 15:34
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, iced_tea 8 13 Jul 2006, 08:21
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, prude_sb 7 25 Apr 2006, 19:12
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, banerjeea_98 12 08 May 2005, 19:15
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, swath20 12 05 Mar 2005, 17:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.