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 “superstores” 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 superstores’ 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.
My Answer was 'D' (later i realized that it is wrong) Correct Answer is 'B'
According to 'B' Heavy advertising by superstores has made the furniture prices to go down. if this is true then superstore's market share must be substantial which is contradicting Premise 3 since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.
because according to Premise 1 The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business
small firms have already gone out of buisness.
In CR - as per my knowledge - we are not allowed to refute the premise while weakening the argument.
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register
Chances of Getting Admitted After an Interview [Data Crunch]
New GMAT Club Decision Tracker - Real Time Decision Updates