Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 04:08 It is currently 21 May 2024, 04:08
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93365
Own Kudos [?]: 625477 [9]
Given Kudos: 81917
Manager
Joined: 13 Sep 2020
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 76 [1]
Given Kudos: 162
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Focus 1:
575 Q79 V79 DI77
GMAT 1: 460 Q36 V18 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 726
Own Kudos [?]: 332 [0]
Given Kudos: 475
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 726
Own Kudos [?]: 332 [0]
Given Kudos: 475
A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location [#permalink]
B can be wrong because the cost of procuring parking lot can be divided among other stores in the lot , not hurting that much in terms of cost.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2023
Posts: 50
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [1]
Given Kudos: 52
Re: A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location [#permalink]
1
Kudos
IMO B

Store is moving to suburbs -> 1. Low cost of moving 2. Growing store and need more space
So, the answer should negate either.. that it won't grow or it will cost them more

B is the only answer pointing towards that
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2023
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Re: A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location [#permalink]
sayan640 wrote:
B can be wrong because the cost of procuring parking lot can be divided among other stores in the lot , not hurting that much in terms of cost.

Posted from my mobile device

­Other stores is out of the context or if it is an assumption then it is too wide.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93365
Own Kudos [?]: 625477 [0]
Given Kudos: 81917
Re: A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
­A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location of a certain city, is of a limited size and has grown so much over the past year that it needs to expand. There are a few other slightly larger available retails lots in the downtown regions for sale, but the prices per square foot are quite high. The management finds that cost per square foot of lots in a suburb a few miles from downtown is almost half of that in the downtown region, so they plan to relocate there to save costs.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this plan?

A) The store will have to adapt to the building codes of the suburb, which may not be the same as the city.
B) The lot for the suburb location will require a sprawling parking lot.
C) Consumers from the city who do not own cars will have to pay bus fare to commute to this store now.
D) Almost all of the store's other locations, in other metropolitan regions throughout the state, are in downtown areas; very few are in suburbs.
E) Some of the available downtown locations, though only a few blocks away, would be closest to entirely different bus and subway lines.

­
This is a CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

­

­

Magoosh Official Explanation:

The cost per square foot may be almost half as much in the suburbs, so it initially sounds cheaper, but the "sprawling parking lot" in the suburbs will be part of the lot, and hence will count in the cost. The word "sprawling" implies very big. It could easily be more than twice as big as the floor space of the store, so the overall cost of this suburban lot, even with the lower per-foot rate, would be much higher than it would be for a downtown lot. In that case, relocating to the suburbs would not save costs, so this fact by itself could possibly undermine the conclusion completely.

The building codes in the suburbs are different—does that mean it's more or less expensive to build something in the suburbs than downtown? We don't know. Furthermore, we don't know if the store plans to build, or will be renting a space in an already constructed building, in which case building costs associated with codes would be irrelevant. Choice (A) is incorrect.

At the heart of (C), we have a cost issue for consumers, not for the store. It doesn't directly affect the store's balance sheet. If the commute to the suburb dissuades a significant number of customers from coming, that could be a problem, but we have no clear evidence to conclude that this would happen. Choice (C) is incorrect because we would need to assume information that isn't in the passage or answer choice.

Choice (D) merely tells us about an overall pattern, and gives us no information about why this pattern is in place. Is there something relative adverse about suburban locations? Or, is it just the case that not many stores have even attempted such a move? We don't know, so we can't say that this undermines the plan. Choice (D) is incorrect.

Choice (E) tells about what would happen if the store moved to other downtown locations. This is not part of the plan under consideration, nor is it clear whether the difference cited would have any cost consequences for the store. This is 100% irrelevant. Choice (E) is incorrect.­
Re: A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts