It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 16:16

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 149

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 7

WE 1: 4 years in IT

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2010, 04:55
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:21) correct 24% (02:37) wrong based on 42 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its
surrounding suburbs. Seafood stores buy fish from the same wholesalers and at the
same prices, and other business expenses have also been about the same. But new tax
breaks will substantially lower the cost of doing business within the city. Therefore, in
the future, profit margins will be higher at seafood stores within the city than at
suburban seafood stores.
For the purposes of evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to know
whether.
(A)more fish wholesalers are located within the city than in the surrounding suburbs.
(B) Any people who currently own seafood stores in the suburbs surrounding Eastville
will relocate their businesses nearer to the city
(C) The wholesale price of fish is likely to fall in the future
(D)Fish has always cost about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its
surrounding suburbs.
(E) Seafood stores within the city will in the future set prices that are lower than those
at suburban seafood stores.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 7

Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 404

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 50

Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2010, 08:05
raghavs wrote:
Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its
surrounding suburbs. Seafood stores buy fish from the same wholesalers and at the
same prices, and other business expenses have also been about the same. But new tax
breaks will substantially lower the cost of doing business within the city. Therefore, in
the future, profit margins will be higher at seafood stores within the city than at
suburban seafood stores.
For the purposes of evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to know
whether.
(A)more fish wholesalers are located within the city than in the surrounding suburbs.
(B) Any people who currently own seafood stores in the suburbs surrounding Eastville
will relocate their businesses nearer to the city
(C) The wholesale price of fish is likely to fall in the future
(D)Fish has always cost about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its
surrounding suburbs.
(E) Seafood stores within the city will in the future set prices that are lower than those
at suburban seafood stores.

Conclusion: In the future, profit margins will be higher at seafood stores within the city than at
suburban seafood stores.

Narrowed down between option C and E. Option C statement if true will impact both the city and suburban seafood stores equally. Only option E brings in additional information that helps us further evaluate the argument put forth.
_________________

Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 50

Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Posts: 97

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2010, 10:49
Agree with E

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 12

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 450

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2010, 13:12
I'd go E...
The fluctuation of earnings and costs affect profit margin.
The stimulus makes a comparison between a suburban fish business and urban fish business and states that their costs are equal. However, a tax break substantially lowers cost of business in the city, which widens the profit margin for the city seafood store.
The conclusion affirms, "in the future profit margins will be higher in the city" but that's only if city restaurants do nothing to affect their earnings. Lowering price could close the differential margin that the tax break creates for the city business. So we'd need to ascertain that the city fish restaurant does not do that in the future.
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 10

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10110

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 02:49
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 [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 6

Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q42 V42

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 03:54
If seafood stores within the city will in the future set prices that are lower than those
at suburban seafood stores then the tax breaks will not affect their profit margin much. And so E is the correct answer.
_________________

In the pursuit of a better GMAT score. You can help me by giving me kudos if you like my post.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 6

Re: Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores   [#permalink] 18 Feb 2016, 03:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by