|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
31 Dec 2022, 20:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons, is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, it makes the unwarranted assumption that loud noise is the reason that one motorcycle sells better than another and process to state other possibilties without providing concrete evidences for any of them.
Firstly, motorcyle X's customers might not be the target market for the foreign company in question, they may have formed their own customer base with the remaining market in the United States. Although it is stated that Motorcycle X has been in business for over 70 year, no indication is given of whether it shows consistant rise in the revenue and if it holds large market share, that if untapped by the foreign company would cause a loss.
The argument also makes a blind comparison between cars and motorcyles, how foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar american manufactured ones, but sell equally well, if this comparison was explored further it would have given it more gravity than just being a completely irrelavant to the noise preferences of motorcyle customer.
Finally, as it argues that there must be another explanation than just loud noise for why the foreign company is unsuccessful in comparison to motorcycle x, the passage puts forward other reasons like the advertisement highlighting motorcyle X's main features as durability and sleek lines, with noisy soundtracks over the engine;s sounds. Now, had the argument mentioned customer feedback, reactions to the advertisement, the features comprehensively evaluted side by side of both motocyles it would have been a more effective justification.
So, even if we assume all these reasons are true there isn't enough datat to prove their validityThus, because the argument makes several unclear explanations it fails to make a convincing case on
Firstly, motorcyle X's customers might not be the target market for the foreign company in question, they may have formed their own customer base with the remaining market in the United States. Although it is stated that Motorcycle X has been in business for over 70 year, no indication is given of whether it shows consistant rise in the revenue and if it holds large market share, that if untapped by the foreign company would cause a loss.
The argument also makes a blind comparison between cars and motorcyles, how foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar american manufactured ones, but sell equally well, if this comparison was explored further it would have given it more gravity than just being a completely irrelavant to the noise preferences of motorcyle customer.
Finally, as it argues that there must be another explanation than just loud noise for why the foreign company is unsuccessful in comparison to motorcycle x, the passage puts forward other reasons like the advertisement highlighting motorcyle X's main features as durability and sleek lines, with noisy soundtracks over the engine;s sounds. Now, had the argument mentioned customer feedback, reactions to the advertisement, the features comprehensively evaluted side by side of both motocyles it would have been a more effective justification.
So, even if we assume all these reasons are true there isn't enough datat to prove their validityThus, because the argument makes several unclear explanations it fails to make a convincing case on
Moderators:
188 posts
