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 “superstoresâ€

agree with (B)..

we need to show that the superstors control large portion of the market so that these store can keep the price down..

(A) strenghten the argument.
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.......... it only weakens that the prices are not low.
(C) out of scope. irrelavant.
(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.. if these superstore are owned by the large retail chain, these super store control large portion/share of the market and this control reduces the prices. of the office equipment.
(E) also strenghten the argument.

Guys, what about D?

My choice would be D.

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
This cannot weaken the argument. It's more of an irrelevant detail.

(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
Even if this is true, it explains the lower prices of the office equipment and does not refute the flawed analysis.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
Not useful to weaken the argument.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
In this case, the large retailing chains hold a major portion of the office-equipment marketshare instead of the superstores which sell them, 'cos these chains own such stores. And since this results in superstores owning a large marketshare of office equipments, it readily results in lower prices of the same.


(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
Nope. No impact on the argument.

[quote="swath20"]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 “superstoresâ€

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
- does not explain why superstores forced the retail outlets to close

(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
- If so, only the superstores could survive since they have a high sales volume. Samll firms which do not have such a high volume of sales can no longer compete.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
- only tells us superstores may not be always profitable to stay in business. It does not tells us why small firms go bust.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
- tells us large retail chains also sell other types of goods. But does selling other products, (for instance, cars) affect the business of small retail business that deal only in office-equpiment ? No, it doesn't. We still do not have a valid reason why small firms are forced to go out of business even though superstores own only a small share of the retail market.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
- Out of scope.

(B) it is.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

You are right. I did not read the question carefully

I've highlighted the parts which is important to answer the question. D would do nicely as it suggests the small retails went bust not because of competition from large superstores.

Refuting argument: The upheaval in the office equipment retail business can be attributed to the superstores where prices are low and sales are high.
Argument: The analysis is wrong because the superstore's market share is very small. (If their mkt share is small then they should not have affected the entire business.)

Ask for weakening (for the argument, or support for the refuting argument).

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
This is irrelavent to the argument since the argument only concers retail market.

(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
This should be the right answer. Their mkt share maybe small, but they have affected the entire industry with their low price.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
This doesn't not say anything much one way or the other.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
What their owners sell in the other markets is irrelevant to the office equipment retail market.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
Again irrelevant.