|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 97
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, [#permalink]
 14 Sep 2006, 16:34
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€
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Will go for 'D'
The argument compares Office-equiment retailing with Generice Retailing and this is explained in 'D'
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
i choose B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 10
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Answer D is my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 718
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
My choice is D
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
Between A and D.
I'll go for A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
My answer is B.
Super stores advertised their low prices heavily. As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers. Large retailers could offer furniture at low price. Many smaller retailers could nt and went out of business. Even in that case, retailers might be having large market share.
_________________
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1278
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
Although the superstores might control a small share, the prices may be affected due to their advertising low prices.
Answer: B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 0
|
count my vote for (B) too
_________________
"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 71
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
B it is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 6
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
ak_idc wrote: My answer is B.
Super stores advertised their low prices heavily. As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers. Large retailers could offer furniture at low price. Many smaller retailers could nt and went out of business. Even in that case, retailers might be having large market share.
This does not prove that superstores control a large market share. Your statement "As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers" is an assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1278
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
Don't the bold parts imply that his assumption is correct?
abba_rv wrote: ak_idc wrote: My answer is B.
Super stores advertised their low prices heavily. As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers. Large retailers could offer furniture at low price. Many smaller retailers could nt and went out of business. Even in that case, retailers might be having large market share. This does not prove that superstores control a large market share. Your statement "As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers" is an assumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 51
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Why not C???
Even new superstores have abandoned the market...it means the other superstores have control not a very small share of the retail market.
_________________
Woody crack the GMAT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Facts
Upheaval in office-equipment retail business
Small firms have gone ouf business
ROOT CAUSE (as per the argument)
Superstores high sales volumes with low prices operating on a narrow profit margin
Above analysis is flawed as
superstores are still controlling a very small share of retail market.
Possible Inference - Superstores could chase out small retailers of office equipment but could not do the same for other small retailers. Hence their market share is quite small.
Question :- most weaken the claim that the analysis is flawed. In otherwords strenghthens the original argument.
(A) - Out of scope
(B) - Adds more to the facts.
(c) - Usage of some - ambiguous; not definite
(d) - out of scope. Talks about retail chains
(e) - Quite generic. Not relevant
Change my original stand from 'D' to 'B'
B seems to be the one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
abba_rv wrote: ak_idc wrote: My answer is B.
Super stores advertised their low prices heavily. As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers. Large retailers could offer furniture at low price. Many smaller retailers could nt and went out of business. Even in that case, retailers might be having large market share. This does not prove that superstores control a large market share. Your statement "As a result customers started asking for similar prices from retailers" is an assumption. I never said that superstores control a large market share. I was just trying to explain how superstores' small market share, and their low price offerings go together.
_________________
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
This is my analysis:
The flawed analysis blames on market share as the reason that small mum&pop stores have gone out of business. To weaken this argument, we just need another reason.
B presented that the heavily advertising of low prices could be another reason. so it weakened the market share claim. so, B is the answer.
C and D are too far from the argument itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
|
banerjeea_98 |
12 |
08 May 2005, 20:15 |
 |
|
|
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,
|
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
