|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, [#permalink]
 08 May 2005, 20:15
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 “superstoresâ€
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1581
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 0
|
in terms of lowering the price B weakens.
in terms of control of office equipment by the superstore, D weakens.
however, in final this analysis i.e. lowering of price by superstore, go with B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 432
Location: Phoenix
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Something that most weakens the argument that this analysis is flawed should strengthen the analysis the most.
B strengthens the analysis, because it says that because of superstores advertisement of low prices, the prices have crashed. This could get the smaller companies out of business.
A is wrong because it doesn't talk about retail market.
C talks about superstores going out of business - and doesn't talk about the reasons for superstores going out of business - thus doesn't affect the argument at all.
D is irrelevant.
E doesn't differentiate between the superstores and other retail stores - just describes a growing trend of growing demand for computer-relates furniture.
_________________
Who says elephants can't dance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Here is my problem with the question. In order to counter the arguement that the anaylsis is flawed, one should actually go-after the evidence on which that arguement is based upon i.e. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. ......The portion in BF is what we shud be after. What u guys think ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
banerjeea_98 wrote: Here is my problem with the question. In order to counter the arguement that the anaylsis is flawed, one should actually go-after the evidence on which that arguement is based upon i.e. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. ......The portion in BF is what we shud be after. What u guys think ?
What you say is true, but you are restricting yourself to a specific evidence, instead you should look at it as, anything other than the conclusion is a evidence for the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1089
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
it's between B and D, i will say D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 50
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
to weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed => we need analysis that will strengthen the case that “superstoresâ€
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 144
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
For me, A seems right. The argument states that the analysis is flawed because of today's small shares of the retail market that the superstores control. But in fact, the actual shares that the superstores have are much larger, a bigger part of this contribution is from purchase under contract directly with manufacturers.
Hence I choose A.
_________________
Regards,
Wunderbar03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 33
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
(D) it should be 
The argument to support the view that 'analysis is flawed' is stated as the stores still have a small portion of the retail market.
This argument could be weakened only if it could be proved that the stores dont have a small portion of the market or by stating that the stores are a part of the larger retailing chains which have a wider presence in the retailing markets. And this is exactly what (D) does.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Really confusing. 
I think it should be b.
We need to say that the argument is NOT flawed.Based on the reasoning given in the argument before the last sentence/conclusion , the author says that the argument is flawed.Thus we need to strenthen the case presented.This is possible by B.
Im crossing my fingers.
Best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 277
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
B : Has to B 
Only B weakens by saying that super stores has more than little effect on retail market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 511
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I pick B.
what are selling in other store chain is irrelevant, so D is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 252
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 29
|
has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low 1) Many small business have gone out business because of low prices . This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. 2) This is flawed since superstores control just a small share of the market. The flawed assumption is ; the smaller share which stores hold , the lesser power it/they can affect the prices. Since B weaken this assumption by introducing new assumption it is the right choice. Many small businesses have gone out of business because of low prices . Low prices are due to the heavy advertising of the superstores.
_________________
Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business,
|
swath20 |
14 |
05 Mar 2005, 18:08 |
 |
|
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business,
|
prude_sb |
7 |
25 Apr 2006, 20:12 |
|
|
|
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business,
|
iced_tea |
8 |
13 Jul 2006, 09:21 |
|
|
|
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business,
|
govinam |
15 |
14 Sep 2006, 16:34 |
|
|
|
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business,
|
wudy |
11 |
01 Apr 2007, 11:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
