Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 May 2017, 17:07

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 01:36
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (00:00) correct 50% (00:00) wrong based on 6 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people to take up chess. Since chess is most enjoyable when two people of equal ability play one another, the group believed that few people play chess because it is so hard to find a suitable opponent.

Which of the following statements would most seriously undemine the consortium's viewpoint?

A. On average, a set of chess pieces costs much more than most other board games.

C. Tennis is most enjoyable when two equally matched opponents play each other, and the number of young tennis players has risen steadily.

dont know whether this has been posted here before.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 03:40
1
KUDOS
The answer is C. Here's why:
C directly hits the author's assumption that since its difficult to find people of equal skill level, chess isn't popular. Since tennis also requires people of equal skill level playing, and yet the number of tennis player has increased, the logic is undermined.

A isn't exactly true because chess might be more expensive than most board games, but most board games might be cheaper than most other games. Besides, the passage makes no reference to any economic bias in chess' popularity.

Hope that helps.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 03:49
1
KUDOS
doloris wrote:
A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people to take up chess. Since chess is most enjoyable when two people of equal ability play one another, the group believed that few people play chess because it is so hard to find a suitable opponent.

Which of the following statements would most seriously undemine the consortium's viewpoint?

A. On average, a set of chess pieces costs much more than most other board games.

C. Tennis is most enjoyable when two equally matched opponents play each other, and the number of young tennis players has risen steadily.

dont know whether this has been posted here before.

I'll take (A).
In (C), the no. of young tennis players may have risen for a reason despite the difficulty to find an evenly matched pair of players, who would want to enjoy their game.
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 05:20

but if chess is more expensive than most board games, it is this reason that is preventing people from playing it and not finding people with equal abilities.

im lost??
Director
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 901
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 06:03
It seems like an obvious A to me because if the cost of chess pieces is unreasonably expensive, then that explains why fewer people play chess as opposed to lack of a suitable opponent.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 237
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 06:26
i agree with A. cant figure out how it can be C
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 08:03
Folaa3 wrote:
It seems like an obvious A to me because if the cost of chess pieces is unreasonably expensive, then that explains why fewer people play chess as opposed to lack of a suitable opponent.

Fola, Doloris, et al,

I do not think we can conclude (absolutely) that the high cost of the chess pieces is the reason why fewer people play chess. What if there chess pieces were scarce (not an option stated, but a possibility)? However, because we are always dealing with the better choice, i'll still stick to (A), because i think (C), though a reason that may weaken the arguement, is not just as strong as (A). It's a strange question anyway. Hope someone can throw more light on this.

Question source Doloris?
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 08:51
nice to see things warming up.c just doesnt seem convincing enough.
Say which one is better?Vaerbal workout-PR Vs Kaplan.

anyway, this is from verbal workout for GMAT-PR.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 455
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 09:13
kapslock wrote:
The answer is C. Here's why:
C directly hits the author's assumption that since its difficult to find people of equal skill level, chess isn't popular. Since tennis also requires people of equal skill level playing, and yet the number of tennis player has increased, the logic is undermined.

Does # of people play teenis increase means it's easier to find suitable opponent?
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 09:13
Arsene_Wenger wrote:
Folaa3 wrote:
It seems like an obvious A to me because if the cost of <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=22&k=chess%20pieces" onmouseover="window.status='chess pieces'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">chess pieces</a> is unreasonably expensive, then that explains why fewer people play chess as opposed to lack of a suitable opponent.

Fola, Doloris, et al,

I do not think we can conclude (absolutely) that the high cost of the chess pieces is the reason why fewer people play chess. What if there chess pieces were scarce (not an option stated, but a possibility)? However, because we are always dealing with the better choice, i'll still stick to (A), because i think (C), though a reason that may weaken the arguement, is not just as strong as (A). It's a strange question anyway. Hope someone can throw more light on this.

Question source Doloris?

Guys (Gender neutral),

I seemed to be the only one going with C and so far I am sticking to it. I am stating the reasons for going with C once again - hope that helps, but would really appreciate if
1. You can criticise the reasons for supporting C, or
2. Provide reasons for supporting A.

Actually, you do have reasons for supporting A. If Chess is expensive then it would not be popular. Pretty straightforward. Isn't it? No. And for this reason :
1. Chess has been mentioned to be more expensive that most board games only. At no place it has been suggested that Chess is cheaper/more expensive than another game that is popular.
2. The popularity of chess has not been compared to the board games.

Come to think of it - we are comparing apples to oranges. We know Chess isn't getting popular. And we compare its cost to other board games. Either we should be comparing chess' cost to games that are getting popular, or we should at least know how popular other board games are.

On the other side, with C, we are taking the marketing agency's statement heads on. They conclude that the reason for Chess not being popular is that it can be enjoyed when 2 people with equal skillset play, and its hard to find. With C, we say that even with tennis, where people enjoy when they have equal skillset, and yet it is growing in popularity. Thus we have a comparison between apples and apples.

This has not been explicitly mentioned, but there's a point that goes against C. There is a concept of critical mass - when you have sufficient number of players already, you start to get more people that match your skillset and you start to enjoy the game and its popularity increases. And when the number of people playing a game is less than this critical mass, you dont find people matching your skillset and so the game isn't as popular. Chess could be below this critical mass and tennis could be over this critical mass for the statement to be true, yet not provide sufficient opposition to the marketing firm's assertion. But then its a little long shot.

_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 455
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 09:41
Kapslock:

You haven't answer my question, because in C, no where says the # of player increase means it's easier to find suitable opponents.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 11:56
DLMD wrote:
Kapslock:

You haven't answer my question, because in C, no where says the # of player increase means it's easier to find suitable opponents.

DMLD,

That's precisely the point. Since tennis is getting popular (unlike chess), and it also requires people of similar skillset playing each other (like chess), the logic/viewpoint that "since it is difficult to find people of similar skillset, people don't play that game" is undermined.

Kapslock
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 165
Location: Atlanta , GA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 14:02
doloris wrote:
A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people to take up chess. Since chess is most enjoyable when two people of equal ability play one another, the group believed that few people play chess because it is so hard to find a suitable opponent.

Which of the following statements would most seriously undemine the consortium's viewpoint?

A. On average, a set of chess pieces costs much more than most other board games.

C. Tennis is most enjoyable when two equally matched opponents play each other, and the number of young tennis players has risen steadily.

dont know whether this has been posted here before.

I go with 'A' because comsortiums view point is few people play because it is hard to find the suitable opponent but 'A' says since this game is costly , so few people paly
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 14:52
1
KUDOS
shalinikhatri wrote:
doloris wrote:
A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people to take up chess. Since chess is most enjoyable when two people of equal ability play one another, the group believed that few people play chess because it is so hard to find a suitable opponent.

Which of the following statements would most seriously undemine the consortium's viewpoint?

A. On average, a set of <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=22&k=chess%20pieces" onmouseover="window.status='chess pieces'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">chess pieces</a> costs much more than most other <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=22&k=board%20games" onmouseover="window.status='board games'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">board games</a>.

C. Tennis is most enjoyable when two equally matched opponents play each other, and the number of young tennis players has risen steadily.

dont know whether this has been posted here before.

I go with 'A' because comsortiums view point is few people play because it is hard to find the suitable opponent but 'A' says since this game is costly , so few people paly

Alright Shalini,

Let me put it this way - Chess being expensive certainly can be one of the reasons people don't play it, but a comparison with tennis undermines the consortium's view the most because it proves that despite being the game that requires people of equal capability (like chess) it still is gaining in popularity. This directly opposes the consortium's view, while chess being expensive contributes as one of the plausible reasons why its not growing in popularity, and does not, on its own undermine the consortium's viewpoint.

I hope I could explain my chain of thoughts here.

Anyway, I have spoken much on this topic, so I'd not really do much talking, though I'd appreciate others to post their views.

Can we have the OA please?
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Manager
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 95
Location: Irvine, CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 May 2005, 15:16
kapslock:

I agree with your reasoning, and the OA was given earlier. it is C.

I see it more clearly when we compare the point of the marketing group that we want to undermine, it is not the cost, but the difficulty of finding people with similar skill level.

just giving my 2 cetns....
_________________

discipline is what I need.

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10363
Followers: 999

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2016, 12:54
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people   [#permalink] 17 Oct 2016, 12:54
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 People traveling in small cars are more likely to be 11 18 Aug 2013, 22:03
2 The recreation camp provides activities for young people 8 17 Oct 2013, 23:06
4 If only the people using a carpool and only small cars with 12 07 Mar 2016, 23:30
5 The government has proposed a plan requiring young people to 16 24 Apr 2014, 04:12
26 As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its 19 21 Dec 2016, 21:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by