Scroll down to text in green to direct analysis of the question and to bypass most of an earlier discussion.adkikani wrote:
generisQuote:
A recent survey of brand preferences showed that R-Bar Beans are considered the best of all brands among all age groups, leading both Texas T Beans and Aunt Sally’s Beans by a wide margin. However, the national sales figures show that Texas T and Aunt Sally’s each sold many more cans of beans last year than did R-Bar.
Situation 1 : R is best
among all ; It leads T and AS by good margin
Situation 2: T and AS sell more volume of cans than R.
paradox: If people prefer R, why are sales figures down for R?
CROSS out that resolves the paradox
Quote:
(E) R-Bar Beans were only introduced to the market three months prior to the calculation of sales figures, while Texas T Beans and Aunt Sally’s Beans had been available for years.
How is the entry of a particular brand say RB here relevant to resolving the paradox?
We already know that in the spite of late entry, RB is much liked than others.
EDIT: I misunderstood one of your questions. I have corrected my response.adkikani - I think you may have gotten turned around between understanding what you correctly described as the paradox:
Quote:
If people prefer R, why are sales figures down for R?
and the logic contained in answer E
Quote:
(E) R-Bar Beans were ONLY introduced to the market THREE MONTHS PRIOR to the calculation of sales figures, while Texas T Beans and Aunt Sally’s Beans had been available for years. (My emphasis.)
Regarding Option E you wrote:
Quote:
How is the entry of a particular brand say RB here relevant to resolving the paradox?
We already know that in the spite of late entry, RB is much liked than others.
The timing of the entry of brand R is relevant because the timing explains the low sales.
Brand R was too new to get credit for a full year's worth of sales and was at a disadvantage when the data were gathered because new products take time to become known (and purchased).
Brand R has the lowest sales figures because:
1) it could report only
three months' of sales data. Brands S and T reported
twelve months' of sales data; and
2) in contrast to S and T that "had been available for years," R is a new product.
New products do not usually enter the market with explosive sales (unless they are a one-off -- thank you Bob Woodward).
Armed with this information, now we should not be surprised that R's sales are much lower than those of S and T
for the only year reported as of now.You mentioned that:
Quote:
We already know that in the spite of late entry, RB is much liked than others.
I think the
apparent deepening of the paradox hijacked you.
This option says that DESPITE late entry, R's ratings are still the highest.
The paradox seemingly just got worse. Not really. R's newness had a
negative effect on
sales.
R's sales are the lowest
because R is new. Sales are separate from preferences.
Your mind took a natural but erroneous turn.
It seems as if you imagined preference to be a causative force,
i.e., you thought that the "most preferred" status would
cause R's sales figures to be the highest.
"Preference" does not have that much power. "Preference" can't produce sales.
And it can't fix the
misleading method that compares
three months' of sales reporting to
twelve months'.
Preference is merely a consumer's report of what,
ideally, she or he would most prefer to have.
"Preference for" does not inevitably equal "purchase of."
R has the lowest sales
because it is new. If you disagree, I'd like to understand why.
This questionWe have a confounding situation. R's ratings are the highest but R's sales figures are the lowest. R seems like a market aberration.
Four answers will explain why this weird situation has occurred or will illustrate that the inconsistency is not as it appears to be.
We must choose the answer that neither explains nor clarifies the oddity.
Quote:
Can you advise how do we link sales with customers' preferences?
We
don't link them. We do not want to link them.
Preferences and sales are UNlinked in the prompt, and we leave them unlinked.
Rather than trying to link preferences to sales, we need to find options that explain WHY preferences and sales are
not linked.
Four answers, ready-made, will shed light on the anomalous disconnection. One answer will not.
Quote:
Do not we link sales with either revenue, profit or no of units sold?
No. We don't care about measuring, predicting, or defining sales. Neither the question nor the options point in that direction.
I can't tell why you got attached to the specific idea of connecting preferences to sales, or connecting sales to something else.
My experience with paradox and disparity questions indicates that we should avoid highly specific lines of thought.
There are too many ways to explain an oddity. Let the options do the work for you.
We care about what does and does not explain the odd relationship between high ratings and low sales.
Instead of being attached to a particular result we can ask about each option, "
Does this answer help to resolve the paradox?"
If the option HELPS to explain, eliminate that option. If the option does NOT help to explain, you have found the correct answer.
(A) Texas T Beans and Aunt Sally’s Beans are each much less expensive than R-Bar Beans.
[a.k.a. Wal-Mart takes over the world
]
--
Helps to explain.
Comparatively, R is too expensive. People may
like R the most, but they either cannot or will not pay THAT much more for R than
they will pay for S or T. High price => low demand => low sales. Mystery explained.
(B) Some of the surveyed age groups showed more of a preference for R-Bar Beans than did others.
--
Neither helps nor hinders resolution of paradox. (Nor does B do anything except evoke a "WTH?" from me.)
This one is a gift. (B) is not relevant to
anything—
never mind that (B) fails to explain why R has the highest ratings and the lowest sales.
If this option is not the answer then I will return my law degree and demand a refund.
(C) The survey was carried out only in the small geographic area where R-Bar distributes its beans, not nationwide.
--
Helps to explain. Misrepresentative survey. The small survey did not reflect
national preferences.
Sales figures are nationwide. The survey was not. The data are skewed and do not match. Mystery solved.
(D) Most food stores refuse to carry R-Bar Beans because the manufacturer demands that R-Bar Beans be carried exclusively.
--
Helps to resolve. If most stores don't carry brand R, low sales are now explained. People cannot buy what grocers do not sell.
(E) R-Bar Beans were only introduced to the market only three months prior to the calculation of sales figures,
while Texas T Beans and Aunt Sally’s Beans had been available for years.
--
Helps to explain. Sales data either are not representative or are just a dumb yardstick by which
to measure R against S and T. R is too new and has had too few months to report sales data.
So we have
(A) R is comparatively too expensive (high price drives sales down)
(C) survey of preferences is from a small region - not representative of national preferences
(D) R is not even offered for sale in most stores
(E) R has three months' of sales data. S and T had 12 months' of data. Comparatively low sales of R now make sense.
Those 4 answers do not try to uncouple R's high ratings from R's low sales figures. They give a reason for the gap's existence or show that the gap is only an appearance.
We needed one answer that did not help to explain why R brand seemed to be a market misfit.
(B) is that answer.
Hope that helps.
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!
Updated on: 10 Mar 2020, 01:19
45%
(medium)
67%
(01:49)
correct 
close
