Child’s World, a chain of toy stores, has relied on a “supermarket con

Child’s World, a chain of toy stores, has relied on a “supermarket concept” of computerized inventory control and customer self-service to eliminate the category of sales clerks from its force of employees. It now plans to employ the same concept in selling children’s clothes.

The plan of Child’s World assumes that

Given: a chain of toy stores,child's world employs a supermarket concept of computerized inventory control and customer self service to remove the category of sales clerks. it now plans to employ the same concept for children's clothes.

Assumption:Argument assumes that customers don't require sales clerks for the service and clothes inventory can also be managed by computers.


(A) supermarkets will not also be selling children’s clothes in the same manner.(argument assumes opposite of this)
(B) personal service by sales personnel is not required for selling children’s clothes successfully(this is in line with our assumption)
(C) the same kind of computers will be used in inventory control for both clothes and toys at Child’s World( specification of computers is irrelevant)
(D) a self-service plan cannot be employed without computerized inventory control( argument assumes that both self service and computerized inventory control is is required)
(E) sales clerks are the only employees of Child’s World who could be assigned tasks related to inventory control(argument doesn't assume that sales clerks are the only employee)

Choice B is correct.

My concepts are clear, also getting correct answers but taking 4 minutes in CR, any advice?

Hi KAKA1683

First you understand the argument. Identify premise and conclusion.
After that you attack on question.
Prethink about answer than go through the choices A to E.

You can start with above, initially you may take more time but after certain practise it will be very easy.

I also messed this question
But I realized that :
1. we can argue on wrong options
2. Wrong options would have more open doors /unconfirmed reasons
3. Can confirm right or wrong with negate option.



(A) supermarkets will not also be selling children’s clothes in the same manner
It is out of scope. if supermarket approach can not be applied in clothes then why are we even talking about selling clothes . nonsense option . reject

(B) personal service by sales personnel is not required for selling children’s clothes successfully
Negate: personal service by sales personnel is required for selling children’s clothes successfully
If this is required then computerized option is not valid. Hence bringing the same concept in selling children clothes is not valid
conclusion is distorted completely. Hence this is right negation.

Actually there is small open door here: selling successfully. ( I could argue as argument cares only about selling. what is meant by successful selling) . But this option is still better than other options. so I shortlisted it and applied negation technique.

(C) the same kind of computers will be used in inventory control for both clothes and toys at Child’s World
Ok same kind can be used. Can i use different kinds? Why not? I don't know is scope of kind? Does it mean specification or OS or softwares? Then this can not be option. too many open doors

(D) a self-service plan cannot be employed without computerized inventory control
I need X and Y to make Z. Y needs X or X need Y or X Y needs U . Too many open doors.- reject

(E) sales clerks are the only employees of Child’s World who could be assigned tasks related to inventory control
>>Question to ask?: can sales clerks could be assigned other jobs? Yes, why not. no reason not to assign- reject
this was one of my shortlisted option because i didnt accept B option before comparison
I applied negate technique on E: sales clerks are NOT the only employees of Child’s World who could be assigned tasks related to inventory control
Effect: so it means other employees could also be fired who were handling tasks related with inventory control. I find open gap of relation with conclusion. It doesn't show affect on conclusion of selling in clothes.
So this option also rejected.


Final B answer

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.