Retail coffee-sellers do not expect that consumers are content to pay more for decaffeinated coffee than for regular coffee.
I think if retailers thought consumers wont agree to pay higher prices, it would charge less for decaf
though this option is waaay out of scope.
_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Follow-up note to my previous comment:

Negating a statement can sometimes be confusing and always time-consuming, so this is a technique you should only use when you are down to just a couple choices and really can't make a decision. But, in those scenarios I find it pretty useful.

Cheers,
Mark
_________________

Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manhattan GMAT: World-Renowned 99th Percentile Instructors & The Most Comprehensive Curriculum

OA is fine.

About D -
Conclusion - Price difference is not due to the decaffeinating process, yet price is high.
D says - Retailers do not expect customers to pay more for this high-priced coffee. In such a case, the retailers would not be selling the decaff. coffee at a higher rate. That means, if they do not expect customers to buy decaff. coffee at such a high rate, it implies that the retailers don't perceive decaff. coffee to be so specially sold - Rather, high-pricing of decaff. coffee is unintentional and is probably a cause of the expensive decaff. process.
I cannot call this a complete weakener. The alternate cause is not clearly given in this choice. So, if its the same cause as given in the premise, it is a weakener, else, OOS.

Thanks.

Hi Archit,

I agree, B is a tricky one. Here is how I figured it out...

The key is in looking at what the argument actually is:

Therefore, the price difference cannot be accounted for by the greater cost of providing decaffeinated coffee to consumer.

What does this rely on?

Here is B

B. Price differences between products can generally be accounted for by such factors as supply and demand, not by differences in production costs.

If you look at the two bold sentences together in isolation it becomes clearer that the second one is NOT an assumption of the first. That the price difference can not be accounted for because of one factor, is not dependent on a different reason for price difference.

Hope that helps..

james
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

Hi,

I disagree with you.

If you think about producing anything, there are 2 costs that matter:
1) Raw materials
2) Cost of the process

So if we know that the process costs the same the only other thing that can affect the production cost is the raw materials.

So if we know that the raw materials (coffee beans) cost the same, then we can be sure that the production costs are equal for decaffinated and caffinated coffee.

Hope that makes sense.

james
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

Premises:
The retail price of decaffeinated coffee is considerably higher than that of regular coffee.
However, the process by which coffee beans are decaffeinated is fairly simple and not very costly.

Conclusion: The price difference cannot be accounted for by the greater cost of providing decaffeinated coffee to consumer.

Understand here what the conclusion is. It is that greater cost of providing decaf coffee does not lead to the price difference.
This means the author wants to say that there is another factor at play because of which price of decaf is high. That 'other factor' could be anything other than cost of providing decaf coffee.
Option (b) tells you that 'supply and demand' forces set the prices, not the cost of providing the product. This strengthens the author's argument. It is one of the 'other factors'. The option is telling you that yes, there is an 'other factor' which accounts for the greater price of decaf.

Now, what could be the assumption here? What do we need to be true to say that 'cost of providing decaffeinated coffee' is not higher?
The argument already tells us that the process of decaf is simple and not expensive. But it doesn't say anything about raw material cost. When the author says 'cost of providing decaffeinated coffee', it includes both raw material and process cost. He only tells us that process cost is not high. He is assuming that the raw material cost is also not high. Only then can he say that 'cost of providing decaffeinated coffee' is not high and that some other factor is at play which sets the price of decaf coffee high.

So (E) is the assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews