It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 22:10

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 01:36
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

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.

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 29 [1], given: 0

Location: Phoenix
Re: CR- chess [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 03:40
1
This post received
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?

Kudos [?]: 29 [1], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 555

Kudos [?]: 23 [1], given: 0

Re: CR- chess [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 03:49
1
This post received
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.

Kudos [?]: 23 [1], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 05:20
thank you for your post.the answer is indeed c.

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?? :roll:

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 894

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 235

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 06:26
i agree with A. cant figure out how it can be C

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 555

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 452

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- chess [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: Phoenix
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Your views are appreciated.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 452

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: Phoenix
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Hope this was the answer to what you asked.

Kapslock
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 163

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

Location: Atlanta , GA
Re: CR- chess [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

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

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 29 [1], given: 0

Location: Phoenix
Re: CR- chess [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2005, 14:52
1
This post received
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?

Kudos [?]: 29 [1], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 95

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

Location: Irvine, CA
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

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

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10145

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people   [#permalink] 17 Oct 2016, 12:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A small marketing consortium wanted to get more young people

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.