Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail [#permalink]
24 Jul 2003, 12:44
This post was BOOKMARKED
71% (03:28) correct
29% (01:45) 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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail [#permalink]
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. got a headache trying to solve this one.
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail
02 Dec 2013, 07:06