It is currently 21 Sep 2017, 05:29

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

Another one of the CRs that bowled me, The lower the cost of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 92 [2], given: 1

Another one of the CRs that bowled me, The lower the cost of [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2009, 10:59
2
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Another one of the CRs that bowled me,

The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers, and retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers than retail establishments that do not distribute fliers charge for equivalent items. Thus, if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

A. Some of the most moderately priced retail establishments do not currently have the financial resources to distribute fliers.
B. Consumers will buy more retail items if the overall cost of these items decreases.
C. If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
D. If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.
E. If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.


Please post your thoughts....
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 92 [2], given: 1

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 815

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2009, 12:43
IMO D
not sure though

-----

Reasoning:

A. Some of the most moderately priced retail establishments do not currently have the financial resources to distribute fliers.
- Out of scope
B. Consumers will buy more retail items if the overall cost of these items decreases.
-Out of scope (talking about the cost to consumer, and not about the amount of purchase.
C. If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
==> This is already stated and is not an assumption
Government subsidise ==> result in lower cost of distribution
And premises is already there which states :
Lower the cost ==> more retail establishment would distribute

D. If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.
-->Seems fine
E. If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.
==> I don't like the word 'most' in these cases as they are extreme.

that's my POE.

--(2:09)--

Now why D is correct IMO:
conclusion is "if ..., the cost to consumers for retail items will drop"
So D answers that ==> With more players in the distribution with lower prices, other retail establishments who do not distribute will lower their prices, not necessary lower than others who distribute fliers.
==>End result, cost to the most of the consumers, including those who use the services of the establishments who do not distribute, will decrease
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 879

Kudos [?]: 814 [0], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2009, 13:24
IMO E.

D >> Tempting. If retail establishments which do not distribute fliers lower their prices only then the cost to consumers will come down. Note that the conclusion is made in a generic way..saying "cost to consumers for retail items will drop". Which means all retail establishments (fliers+ non-fliers) have to reduce prices..NOT only "some".

E >> If "most" retail establishments distribute fliers and government subsidizes all of them then the cost to consumers will drop for sure.

Kudos [?]: 814 [0], given: 18

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 815

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2009, 13:58
Economist wrote:
IMO E.

D >> Tempting. If retail establishments which do not distribute fliers lower their prices only then the cost to consumers will come down. Note that the conclusion is made in a generic way..saying "cost to consumers for retail items will drop". Which means all retail establishments (fliers+ non-fliers) have to reduce prices..NOT only "some".

E >> If "most" retail establishments distribute fliers and government subsidizes all of them then the cost to consumers will drop for sure.


As per E:
first, "Most" doesn't imply all,
==> so, there are still few retail establishments which still do not

Before subsidy we have 50 establishments who distribute, and 50 establishments who do not distribute.

After subsidy,

lets say 90 who distribute, and 10 who do not.

Now, what about the customers of these 10 establishments.
==> Are you assuming that they are going to decrease their prices. Why will these establishments will decrease their price, no reason mentioned as such in the premises.

And if they are not going to decrease their prices, there is no decrease in cost of their customers. (Not completely supporting the conclusion)

If the case in the conclusion were like 'cost of the most of the customers', E would be right.
IMO: Conclusion is for all the customers and E doesn't caters to all customers.

D implies that as 50 becomes 70,80, or 90 who distribute, the remaining 30,20, or 10 who do not distribute will decrease the cost of the items.
Opinions please!
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 9

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2009, 14:41
IMO D.

C and E imply that there is only an increase in no of retailers selling cheap rather than the price as a whole becoming cheaper. However D implies clearly that the prices everywhere will decrease.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 9

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 879

Kudos [?]: 814 [0], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2009, 22:20
Thus, if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.

For assumption, we have to link subsidy<->distribution<->prices.
E links everything and holds the argument.

D. If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.

For D, retail establishments may or may not reduce the price. True, if they reduce price definitely the cost will go down. But we don't whether these establishments were already having the subsidy or they have lowered prices due to the subsidy.

Kudos [?]: 814 [0], given: 18

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 815

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 00:47
OA and OE please!
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 01:11
Hi friends....When I attempted the question, I thought that the only credible answers are C and E..Both of them say ALMOST the same thing...But the presence of MOST in E corrupts the intention of an assumption....So C wins here....C is the OA...

D is wrong because the situation given in D is already there in the passage and even in the presence of the situation, there is no evidence of the lowering of the price by the nonflier retailers....This question teaches us a lot about why we need to pick "not extreme" choices about the assumption questions :roll: ...For except that, choice C and E are same.....
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 815

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 01:53
trainspotting wrote:
Hi friends....When I attempted the question, I thought that the only credible answers are C and E..Both of them say ALMOST the same thing...But the presence of MOST in E corrupts the intention of an assumption....So C wins here....C is the OA...

D is wrong because the situation given in D is already there in the passage and even in the presence of the situation, there is no evidence of the lowering of the price by the nonflier retailers....This question teaches us a lot about why we need to pick "not extreme" choices about the assumption questions :roll: ...For except that, choice C and E are same.....


What is the source of question?
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 02:03
sudeep wrote:
trainspotting wrote:
Hi friends....When I attempted the question, I thought that the only credible answers are C and E..Both of them say ALMOST the same thing...But the presence of MOST in E corrupts the intention of an assumption....So C wins here....C is the OA...

D is wrong because the situation given in D is already there in the passage and even in the presence of the situation, there is no evidence of the lowering of the price by the nonflier retailers....This question teaches us a lot about why we need to pick "not extreme" choices about the assumption questions :roll: ...For except that, choice C and E are same.....


What is the source of question?



I cnt tll the exact source on this forum...But believe me the source is genuine...This is not one of the questons in which we need to be suspicious of the source :? ...If you are really bent on knowing the source, shoot me a mail, I'll reply....

Anyways...Don't you agree with the reasoning why D is wrong???
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 815

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 02:13
trainspotting wrote:
sudeep wrote:
trainspotting wrote:
Hi friends....When I attempted the question, I thought that the only credible answers are C and E..Both of them say ALMOST the same thing...But the presence of MOST in E corrupts the intention of an assumption....So C wins here....C is the OA...

D is wrong because the situation given in D is already there in the passage and even in the presence of the situation, there is no evidence of the lowering of the price by the nonflier retailers....This question teaches us a lot about why we need to pick "not extreme" choices about the assumption questions :roll: ...For except that, choice C and E are same.....


What is the source of question?



I cnt tll the exact source on this forum...But believe me the source is genuine...This is not one of the questons in which we need to be suspicious of the source :? ...If you are really bent on knowing the source, shoot me a mail, I'll reply....

Anyways...Don't you agree with the reasoning why D is wrong???


IMO C is already stated and not assumed ==> see my first post for the reasoning.
C is not justifying the conclusion that the cost to consumers will drop.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 02:34
sudeep wrote:
IMO C is already stated and not assumed ==> see my first post for the reasoning.
C is not justifying the conclusion that the cost to consumers will drop.



Dude, C is not stated in the argument...The argument says in its PREMISE that if the cost of distribution is lower, then more retail establishments will distribute fliers..The argument further says in its CONCLUSION that government subsidies will lower the costs....

Generally in argument questions, we need to find the gaps between PREMISE and CONCLUSION and connect them to get the assumption...The kind of reasoning you have given in you first post to reject C is EXACTLY what needs to be followed to get to the right ans in assumption questions....

Try to put C in a negation test...You'll realize that the negated C will weaken the argument....

I think we should not invest any more time in this question ad move on to the others....
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 815

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 02:38
trainspotting wrote:
sudeep wrote:
IMO C is already stated and not assumed ==> see my first post for the reasoning.
C is not justifying the conclusion that the cost to consumers will drop.



Dude, C is not stated in the argument...The argument says in its PREMISE that if the cost of distribution is lower, then more retail establishments will distribute fliers..The argument further says in its CONCLUSION that government subsidies will lower the costs....

Generally in argument questions, we need to find the gaps between PREMISE and CONCLUSION and connect them to get the assumption...The kind of reasoning you have given in you first post to reject C is EXACTLY what needs to be followed to get to the right ans in assumption questions....

Try to put C in a negation test...You'll realize that the negated C will weaken the argument....

I think we should not invest any more time in this question ad move on to the others....


Thanks! I think I got one point.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 106

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 879

Kudos [?]: 814 [0], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2009, 03:35
Very good question. +1 for the question.

However, I would not generalize that extreme choices are always wrong for assumption question. It all depends on the conclusion. If conclusion is extreme then assumption can be extreme. In this case the conclusion is generic and not 'extreme'. It doesn't say ALL customers...so C is a better choice.

Kudos [?]: 814 [0], given: 18

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 855

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 7

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2009, 06:47
You dont need to assume C for conclusion to follow.
Stem says that "...retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers"

trainspotting wrote:
Another one of the CRs that bowled me,

The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers, and retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers than retail establishments that do not distribute fliers charge for equivalent items. Thus, if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

A. Some of the most moderately priced retail establishments do not currently have the financial resources to distribute fliers.
B. Consumers will buy more retail items if the overall cost of these items decreases.
C. If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
D. If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.
E. If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.


Please post your thoughts....

Kudos [?]: 472 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Stanford GSB
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 4

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2009, 11:13
C completes the circle of reasoning.

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2009, 22:30
seofah wrote:
You dont need to assume C for conclusion to follow.
Stem says that "...retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers"

trainspotting wrote:
Another one of the CRs that bowled me,

The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers, and retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers than retail establishments that do not distribute fliers charge for equivalent items. Thus, if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

A. Some of the most moderately priced retail establishments do not currently have the financial resources to distribute fliers.
B. Consumers will buy more retail items if the overall cost of these items decreases.
C. If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
D. If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.
E. If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.


Please post your thoughts....



Unsubscribing from the thread due to too many controversies....
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 242

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 23

Location: New York, NY
Re: Fliers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2009, 12:35
I chose C, becuase the second sentence plainly states that the subsidy will lower prices. The missing link is the fact that the subsidy will cause more retailers to produce fliers. E is similar to C, however, it says "most retailers". Who is to say that you need most of them to produce flyers in order to lower prices. Perhaps just some of them will be enough.

However, after reading Sudeep, I see his point. The first sentence clearly states that the lower cost will indeed make more retailers distribute fliers.

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 23

Re: Fliers   [#permalink] 04 Aug 2009, 12:35
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 CR question...Tricky One mat88 0 06 Jul 2014, 10:12
Another CR question on "Healthy Lungs" ezinis 0 04 Jan 2011, 13:18
Another one: One way to judge the performance of a company heygirl 0 18 Feb 2011, 08:27
CR: Here is another one. Would like an explanation please tarek99 11 28 Dec 2007, 07:22
OK this one totally bowled me out. FN 3 21 Jun 2008, 21:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Another one of the CRs that bowled me, The lower the cost of

  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®.