Sales campaigns aimed at the faltering personal computer market have

Hello, mSKR. In the interest of helping you and the larger community with the question, I will provide a full analysis. Since we are looking to fill in the blank, we have to make sure we follow the passage map.


Okay, so the first sentence tells us that there exists a faltering personal computer market. In response, sales campaigns have focused on the user-friendliness of PCs.

Sentence two provides a conclusion for us, calling the campaigns oddly premature and irrelevant for most potential buyers. (Judgmental language is typically a sign of a conclusion or argument.) We need to figure out the reason for such an argument.

Now, you probably know that I am not a fan of pre-thinking. We cannot predict which twists and turns the GMAT™ might throw at us, but one thing we can keep an eye on is whether the premise offered as an answer choice follows the linear logic of the passage. So, what would be a possible candidate for this logically prior issue mentioned just before the blank?


This may be a secondary or ancillary consideration, but I have to think that most potential PC buyers would not go in thinking about fixing issues on their new machine. A new PC, to most users, should probably not have problems at all, so service would not be the most fitting issue to consider, not to mention that we cannot ignore that the passage calls an emphasis on user-friendliness irrelevant. This answer choice would suggest the direct opposite.


Hmm, now the scalability of user-friendliness comes with a price? Anyway, we see the same front-and-center focus on user-friendliness here that we saw in (A), and we can dismiss this one on the same grounds.


I should sound like a broken record by now. We should not be focusing on user-friendliness, since we cannot argue with information presented in the passage. Sure, we can call a conclusion wayward and offer reasons why in a weaken question, but here, the task is to provide support for the given argument. (C) is a reasonable real-world consideration, but a trap is a trap, and you have to watch the passage carefully to avoid falling into one. Moreover, I am not sure about this currently available models designation. The passage does not say anything about the campaigns touting the user-friendliness of next-generation PCs. Maybe inventory is overstocked and the campaigns seek to ease that burden (i.e. to sell currently available models). All things considered, then, we should be looking elsewhere for our answer.


There is nothing about this answer choice that holds up to scrutiny. Whether salespeople use the products they sell is not a logically prior issue to consider. Does a snake-oil salesman need to use snake oil for you to buy it? Typically, their spiel is to tell you how well the product works for everyone else (presumably people like you), and you get so caught up in the pitch that you buy on impulse. Whichever way you wish to spin this one, it is loosely related to the passage and does not fit our logical preface to the underlined portion.


I cannot find a single flaw to debate in this one. The soft language in enough sensible uses is harder to argue against than something specific or overreaching (such as need of). You drew attention to the expense, but the noun is simply used synonymously with the cost here. That is, the expense should not be construed as expensive, but a PC does cost something, just as other products do (even a so-called penny candy). Now, to make sure we do not lose sight of the question, does it make sense for potential PC buyers to think about whether they might actually use one, and whether they would be willing to spend money to purchase the machine? You bet. This is the best answer of the five presented, hands down, and that is why we need to choose it.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about it. (I had not seen this one before.)

- Andrew