|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
City A: Eliminate its presence in UDS stores.
City B: Eliminate its presence in UDS stores.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
44% (02:11) correct
56%
(02:39)
wrong
based on 234
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
GMAT Pill
A new beverage company has been operating in two cities, one in City A and the other in City B. The company has stocked shelves equally in supermarkets in both cities, but has stocked twice as many shelves in UDS (up and down the street) stores in City A as in City B. The two cities have similar populations and economics and the sales at each store have been roughly equal. A consultant claims this shows that stocking shelves in UDS stores has not improved beverage sales.
In the table, select changes that the company could make in City A and City B, respectively, that together would probably be most helpful in testing the consultant's claim. Make only two selections, one for city A and one for City B in each column.
A new beverage company has been operating in two cities, one in City A and the other in City B. The company has stocked shelves equally in supermarkets in both cities, but has stocked twice as many shelves in UDS (up and down the street) stores in City A as in City B. The two cities have similar populations and economics and the sales at each store have been roughly equal. A consultant claims this shows that stocking shelves in UDS stores has not improved beverage sales.
In the table, select changes that the company could make in City A and City B, respectively, that together would probably be most helpful in testing the consultant's claim. Make only two selections, one for city A and one for City B in each column.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Two-part Analysis (TPA) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
| City A | City B | Statements |
| Double shelf space allotted to the beverage company in supermarkets. | ||
| Eliminate its presence in supermarkets. | ||
| Eliminate its presence in UDS stores. | ||
| Selectively choose only the largest UDS stores to have a presence in. | ||
| Add beverage shelf space in gas stations and discount "99 cent" stores. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
City A: Eliminate its presence in UDS stores.
City B: Eliminate its presence in UDS stores.
05 Feb 2025, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. The question asks us to find which changes could be used in Cities A and B to test the consultant's claim.
2. It is known that the two cities have been stocked equally except there are twice as much in UDS stores in City A as in City B. Since the sales were similar for every store, the consultant claims that this shows stocking shelves in UDS stores has not improved beverage sales.
3. The first, second, and fifth statements all talk about increasing or decreasing the company's presence in certain stores. However, these stores have no relation to UDS stores. So, these changes won't work for neither city.
4. Selectively choose only the largest UDS stores to have a presence in. This wouldn't help justify anything because the size of stores is not shown to have any impact. So, this change won't work for neither city.
5. Our answer will then be: City A - Eliminate its presence in UDS stores and City B - Eliminate its presence in UDS stores.
2. It is known that the two cities have been stocked equally except there are twice as much in UDS stores in City A as in City B. Since the sales were similar for every store, the consultant claims that this shows stocking shelves in UDS stores has not improved beverage sales.
3. The first, second, and fifth statements all talk about increasing or decreasing the company's presence in certain stores. However, these stores have no relation to UDS stores. So, these changes won't work for neither city.
4. Selectively choose only the largest UDS stores to have a presence in. This wouldn't help justify anything because the size of stores is not shown to have any impact. So, this change won't work for neither city.
5. Our answer will then be: City A - Eliminate its presence in UDS stores and City B - Eliminate its presence in UDS stores.
09 Jan 2026, 06:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Not a good question. Ignore.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Two-part Analysis (TPA) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
