For several years Buddy's Bolt Barn has specialized in supplying faste

A through C are all give us reasons to believe that even after the recent closure of workshops, Buddy's may not loose its business. Hence all weaken the conclusion.
E, on the other hand, seems to be irrelevant but i found it a weakener too. It gives me a reason to believe that given their prior experience, Buddy's managers can expand the business in other market segments and Buddy's may survive again.
D however, gives another reason to believe that the situation is actually bad. If Buddy's customers are laying off workers because of no work, Buddy's is definitely gonna face hard times.

Hence D it is

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Hi,

Why is E wrong? Isn't it strengthening the belief that the managers have experience in other segments and if Buddy's enter into that segment, managers can drive the business easily and hence buddy's can survive..?
Can you please help me understand where I falter in my understanding?

Question Type: Strengthen

Situation: Buddy is in danger of going out of business because many of its clients have closed down.
Assumption: The situation is grave.

a. Most of the fasteners that Buddy's carries in inventory are not specialized and can be used in a wide variety of industries. - Incorrect. Oppsite. This option tells us that the situation is not grave. Buddy's fasteners can be used in a variety of industries, so it is unlikely to go out of business.

b. Historically, period with a lot of closures of workshops and manufacturing firms have generally been followed by periods with many startups of such firms. - Incorrect. Opposite. No threat to Buddy.

c. Even with the recent closures , there are more workshops and manufacturing firms operating in the region now than there were when Buddy's Bolt Barn first opened. - Incorrect. Opposite. No threat to Buddy.

d. The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid of workers because of shortage of orders. - Correct. The situation of remaining clients of Buddy is tense, so Buddy has to find new clients to keep its business.

e. Some of Buddy's managers have prior retail experience in other market segments. - Incorrect. Irrelevant.

Answer: D

No, you have not understood the conclusion correctly.

It is saying unless you look for 2nd option, you are going to be penny less.

E is saying they have experience of working outside. But that doesn't mean they will actually work outside.

D clearly states that the leftover ones are not going to give them the required business. So, they are going to be at great loss. Hence, they should do something else.

I hope that makes sense.

The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid of workers because of shortage of orders.
Since the workshops have already laid workers because of shortage of orders .So there may be headwinds coming into this business segment that will affect the business of the Bolt barn company down the line.


Answer is D

Expert, I got this question correct but please clear my understanding of this argument, if it is wrong.

Premises -
1. BB's business provides input to manufacturing firms in region.

2. Manufacturing firms in region are closing.

Conclusion -
1. If BB does not expand the market base it is likely to close.

To strengthen this conclusion, we need to strengthen the premise-premise relationship or premise-conclusion relationship.

Option D - Actually strengthens premise-premise relationship by saying the business remained are also going to close down soon, implying to strengthen the conclusion.

For several years Buddy's Bolt Barn has specialized in supplying fasteners - nuts , bolts, screws - to workshops and manufacturing firms in the region . Buddy's in fact now supplies virtually all of the fasteners that this segment of the region's industry uses . Recently , however , many of the region's workshops and manufacturing firms have closed down .Therefore , unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment , it too is likely to go out of business.

Which of the following , if true , most strengthens the argument ?

a. Most of the fasteners that Buddy's carries in inventory are not specialized and can be used in a wide variety of industries .
Strengthens but not the argument but the idea that budy will be able to move to other segment.

b. Historically , period with a lot of closures of workshops and manufacturing firms have generally been followed by periods with many startups of such firms.
Out of scope.

c. Even with the recent closures , there are more workshops and manufacturing firms operating in the region now than there were when Buddy's Bolt Barn first opened.
More workshops and manufaturing firms does not mean direct competition to buddies business.

d. The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid of workers because of shortage of orders.
Correct answer.

e. Some of Buddy's managers have prior retail experience in other market segments.
Not stregthening the argument.

For several years Buddy's Bolt Barn has specialized in supplying fasteners - nuts, bolts, screws - to workshops and manufacturing firms in the region. Buddy's in fact now supplies virtually all of the fasteners that this segment of the region's industry uses. Recently, however, many of the region's workshops and manufacturing firms have closed down .Therefore, unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment, it too is likely to go out of business.

Which of the following, if true , most strengthens the argument?

a. Most of the fasteners that Buddy's carries in inventory are not specialized and can be used in a wide variety of industries.
--> seems to weaken.

b. Historically, period with a lot of closures of workshops and manufacturing firms have generally been followed by periods with many startups of such firms.
--> irrelevant.

c. Even with the recent closures , there are more workshops and manufacturing firms operating in the region now than there were when Buddy's Bolt Barn first opened.
--> irrelevant or seems to weaken.

d. The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid of workers because of shortage of orders.
--> correct.

e. Some of Buddy's managers have prior retail experience in other market segments.
--> irrelevant.

why is tagged as 700 lvl difficulty? wouldn't this kind of question be among the easiest?

this question looks easy b/c all 4 option choices are weakeners.
The difficulty in this question is that the concept in D may not be fully understood by test takers.

Conclusion: Buddy's must expand into alternate segment otherwise they'll go out of business

Here's the logic I applied to POE
a. Most of the fasteners that Buddy's carries in inventory are not specialized and can be used in a wide variety of industries .
180 degree option - this actually weakens the conclusion. It states that Buddy's products are generic and that they don't need to expand into market segments, which are inherently more specialised.

b. Historically , period with a lot of closures of workshops and manufacturing firms have generally been followed by periods with many startups of such firms.
180 degree option again - if new firms open up and presumably replace demand then there's no need to expand into a new market segment is there? Therefore why is the author concluding that Buddy's must expand otherwise go out of business? See how it weakens?

c. Even with the recent closures , there are more workshops and manufacturing firms operating in the region now than there were when Buddy's Bolt Barn first opened.
We aren't comparing Buddy's between now and when it first opened. We are comparing it to present market conditions because the author is concluding that Buddy's will die out relative to the NOW, not the history. Irrelevant.

d. The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid [b]of workers because of shortage of orders.
[/b]Workshops and Mfg. firms are Buddy's clients, so if they have had to make cut backs then inherently they aren't doing as well and so aren't demanding as much supplies. Buddy's is dependent on this segment and it has been described as "specialised", so what happens if a business is dependent on 1 customer and that customer no longer exists or that customer slowly goes away? Your revenue slowly goes down/away.

p.s. its "laid OFF" not "laid of". skywalker please update.

This strengthens the conclusion.
e. Some of Buddy's managers have prior retail experience in other market segments.
okay? How is this even remotely relevant to the conclusion?

Doesn't (A) support the conclusion that Buddy's can expand into a new market segment? Their inventory is not specialized and can be offered at different industries, other than workshops & mfg. firms.

You're right that (A) would strengthen the argument that Buddy's can shift to a new market segment.

However, that's not the exact argument that we're trying to strengthen. The actual conclusion is "unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment, it too is likely to go out of business."

To reach this conclusion, the author doesn't particularly care whether Buddy's can shift to a new market -- he/she only cares about what will happen if Buddy's DOESN'T shift to a new market. (A) doesn't give us any insight into that scenario, so it doesn't strengthen the author's conclusion. Eliminate (A).

Compare that to (D):

We know from the passage that "many of the region's workshops and manufacturing firms have closed down." (D) tells us that the situation is even worse than that -- even the workshops and manufacturers that are still in business have a shortage of orders.

This means that if Buddy's doesn't shift to a new market, it is in even MORE trouble than we thought. So, (D) strengthens the conclusion that "unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment, it too is likely to go out of business."

(D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Main segment BBB currently supplies to: workshops and manufacturing firms

Option D explains why BBB is unlikely to get any further business from its main segment / client, thus strengthening the author's claim that the company needs to move on to a new segment in order to stay afloat.

"This is an interesting question. Let's first unpack the argument.
We are given that for many years Buddy's Bolt Barn (BBB) has specialized in supplying fastners.
BBB virtually supplies all the fasteners in this region's industry. It means they are a pretty extensive player. (let me start a parallel example for clarity. Think of ChaiPoint as a company that provides Chai to all the companies in the Officeland).
Now we have a challenge or a problem - Many of the region's (that BBB serves) workshops and manufacturing firms have closed down. (Many of the offices in Officeland have closed down.)
Conclusion - Therefore, unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment (X), it too is likely to go out of business (Y). What does it mean?
Unless X, Y. So it means X is necessary for not Y (And Not X is a necessary condition for Y. Remember the relationship clearly). If we expand it, BBB expansion is a necessary condition for it to not go out of market.
This means BBB expansion is a necessary condition for survival. (Our example, ChaiPoint expansion is a minimum condition for its survival)

Our job here? To strengthen the conclusion, "BBB expansion is a necessary condition for survival" or "ChaiPoint expansion is a minimum condition for its survival."

Option Elimination, as there are a lot of traps here. But keep the focus on the scope, which is to strengthen the conclusion.

A. Most of the fasteners that Buddy's carries in inventory are not specialized and can be used in a wide variety of industries. - Very good. So, they are nonspecialized, which means they can be easily used in other industries, meaning expansion is not a problem.
What is the scope here? Strengthening that "BBB expansion is a necessary condition for survival." How does "meaning expansion is not a problem" explicitly strengthen that "expansion is a minimum condition for survival." Can we say that "expansion is not a problem" so the company succeeds without " meeting the minimum condition, which is expansion?"

Think of it like this. Unless you score 33% (X), you'll not pass the exam (Y). So it means 33% is necessary for not Y (not passing the exam), which means 33% marks is a necessary or a minimum condition to pass the test. Ok, once again, "33% is the minimum condition or criteria to pass the test."
This option means "33% is not a problem." Why? I say this because I have prepared on a diverse range of topics. But then, can we say that since "33% is not a problem," we will pass an exam without meeting the minimum condition to secure 33% marks? Saying that 33% is not a problem doesn't mean that I have met the condition and achieved 33% marks. Ok. Let's take another example: say that a GMAT score of 760 is a minimum condition to enter into the Dream Business School. And to strengthen it, I say, oh, 760, that's not a problem (maybe I said that because I prepared well on the diverse range of topics that the GMAT requires, or maybe one of my friends got it, and I feel if he can do it, I can ). But to achieve the minimum condition, I have to score 760. How do I know I have scored and met the minimum condition? The GMAC shares an official report proving that I met the condition. This is proof Dream Land Business School will use. But does that mean if I have completed the minimum condition, I get the admission? No. I must also write essays, provide references, and, more importantly, clear the interview. So, preparing well doesn't mean that I have met the minimum conditions and successfully entered into the Dream Business School. Without establishing a clear connection, this option leaves us high and dry.

Now, in option A, saying that BBB fasteners can be used in a wide variety doesn't even establish a link between " expansion may not be problematic" because the BBB fasteners can be used in a wide variety of industries and " expansion is a minimum condition for survival."

Now the question arises: what could make the option A strong contender? For that, we need to establish a clear connection, say, a causal connection between "versatility" and "minimum condition" (keep in mind if we meet the minimum condition, it doesn't mean we succeed; that's why it is called a minimum condition) so we also need to establish a connection with success.

Revised option A - The versatility of the BBB fasteners has led to BBB's expansion to other industries. The versatility was a competitive advantage for BBB to meet the minimum criteria and become a successful company.
Or even crisper - BBB's versatility was a competitive advantage to meet the minimum criteria and become a successful company.

Long story short, our option doesn't bridge the gap. So it's a distortion but not a strengthener we are looking for.

B. Historically, period with a lot of closures of workshops and manufacturing firms have generally been followed by periods with many startups of such firms. - ok. So, it sets a positive outlook that this is a cyclical process, and as time settles, demand should increase. But do we know if that cycle takes a month, two years, or five years or more? No. And do we even know that considering the current challenges of BBB, it can even survive till that cycle settles?
Again, the problem here is that there is no linkage between this being a cyclic process and the scope of our argument, which is to strengthen the conclusion that "BBB expansion is a necessary condition for survival" or "ChaiPoint expansion is a minimum condition for its survival."

How could we revise B to make it suitable (this is not an option on the exam. We are just doing it here so that we understand the concept) - In the same industry as BBB, companies facing challenges under similar cyclic downturns have successfully recovered after strategically expanding into new markets.
So, how have we established the connection?
We gave an example of another company under similar challenges, which are cyclic, as our original option B stated.
So, what did those companies do? They strategically expanded (the same necessary condition in our case). What happened after they successfully expanded (this is also important as just by expansion doesn't mean success. We need an explicit connection) - they successfully recovered.

So, this option as such is also a distortion.

C. Even with the recent closures, there are more workshops and manufacturing firms operating in the region now than there were when Buddy's Bolt Barn first opened. - We are not concerned about what happened in the past. When ChaiPoint opened, there were two factories, and now there are 100. So, we are discussing challenges with respect to today's situation. Maybe when ChaiPaint had only two customers, they used to keep two waiters and ten glasses, and all the operational cost was set for two. But now, as offices in the Officeland have expanded to 100, ChaiPoint has ten different locations in Officeland (there is a rental for each office), they have more servers or waiters, and their operational cost is more. So had past been the criteria, then even if 97 offices shut down, ChaiPoint would still serve three offices, and with respect to the past (2 offices), it's still a 50% growth, but the whole point is that we are comparing with respect to today, i.e., 100 stores. This trap tries to change the reference point. Distortion.

D. The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid off workers because of shortage of orders. - Finally. This is a bit of deception as well. If we read quickly till here, "The workshops and manufacturing firms in the region that have remained in business have all laid-off workers," we feel what it is talking about. But then, when the author talks about the "cause" introduced by " because," it makes sense, meaning the situation is much worse. So it does not just stop at offices in the Officeland reducing to 3, but those three also have a reduced demand. So, the minimum condition mentioned is required and even more important for survival. So, GMAT created distortions and then deception on the right one. .

E. Some of Buddy's managers have prior retail experience in other market segments. - Ok. Some of the waiters/servers at ChaiPoint have experience in the clothing industry. What the heck is that? Clothing? Retail? Seriously? Moreover, there is no linkage at all with the scope of our argument, which is to strengthen the conclusion, "BBB expansion is a necessary condition for survival" or "ChaiPoint expansion is a minimum condition for its survival."Out of scope."

­Hi Raman,
I just want some clarity with regard to the analogy you used.

What does X and Y mean with regard to CHAI POINT.

Does it mean , Unless Chai Point expand into a new market segment X ( Say Coffee) , it too is likey to go out of Business Y (Chai)

Is my understanding correct ?

Regards