Emca, a manufacturer of garden tools, had its most successful 3-month

Question

Emca, a manufacturer of garden tools, had its most successful 3-month period after introducing a new line of shovels, rakes, and other related equipment. During this time, the company also expanded the number of stores that sold their products from 50 to 62, though some industry experts claim that neither the new line of equipment nor the expansion of stores carrying Emca’s products is completely responsible for the recent success.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the experts’ claim?

(A) Emca’s two biggest rivals had their best 3-month period at the same time.
(B) The new stores carrying Emca products only carry the new equipment.
(C) Emca’s leadership has been virtually unchanged since the company’s inception.
(D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns.
(E) The new shovels and rakes have a higher profit margin than do the older shovels and rakes.

EMPOWER  gmat    CR Question Pack 2

Question 25: Emca

48 Hour Answer & Explanation Window  
 Earn KUDOS!  Have your explanations evaluated to help boost your learning. Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.

Scroll Down For Official Explanation

◀ Question 24 
 ▶ Question 26  
 ⏏ CR Library Pack 2 Home

priyan26 · Answer

Answer is E. E is this only option that talks about the reasons for business to expand and add more stores than before.

Posted from my mobile device

chillbrorelax · Answer

First let's understand the situation. Emca introduced a new line of products. After this, Emca experienced immense success for 3-months. When the company was finding success, it opened a few new stores. I have noticed that in these 3 months time, 3 events happened: the company launched new products, and opened new stores while it found great profits. Until the stimulus informs me that these are inter-related events, I will treat them as independent.

There is also a contrasting opinion in the last statement. Some experts claim that new products and new stores did not completely contribute to the success that the company found in those 3 months. Perhaps there was something else that helped the company in finding success. The question is all about this claim. It asks us to find a supporting evidence for this claim.

The evidence must point out that there was another factor, or that introducing new products and new stores was not sufficient to yield maximum profit. Let's find this in the options.

A - This informs us that co-incidentally some other companies in the same region were also experiencing profits. It is possible that some other factor has helped those companies in making great profits. However, it is equally possible that the rival companies did the same as Emca did. I am not sure of what helped those companies.

B - Don't forget the task in hand. This option does not informs us whether this was a factor in getting profits.

C - This option doesn't informs us whether company's leadership was sufficient to find profits.

D - Emca was facing problems in selling the new products. This definitely makes sense. If the new products did not sell well, then it can not really help a great deal in making maximum profits. This supports the claim of the experts.

E - This informs us that launching new products could actually have had helped Emca. Well I was not looking for such an evidence. This goes against the claim of the experts. Moreover, it does not states whether new products sold well or not.

Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device

TarPhi · Answer

priyan26 , the stem says good 3 months NOT because of the new line of products. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong!

(A) Emca’s two biggest rivals had their best 3-month period at the same time. CORRECT - This shows us that the market was doing well and had nothing to do with the product line or the new stores. Maybe it was the end of winter :p

(B) The new stores carrying Emca products only carry the new equipment. - IRRELEVANT

(C) Emca’s leadership has been virtually unchanged since the company’s inception. - IRRELEVANT

(D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns. - Contradictory -

(E) The new shovels and rakes have a higher profit margin than do the older shovels and rakes. - Contradictory - This shows that the new line had something to do with the profits.

daniformic · Answer

...experts claim that neither the new line of equipment nor the expansion of stores carrying Emca’s products is completely responsible for the recent success...

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the experts’ claim?

(D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Official Explanation:

Emca, a manufacturer of garden tools, had its most successful 3-month period after introducing a new line of shovels, rakes, and other related equipment. During this time, the company also expanded the number of stores that sold their products from 50 to 62, though some industry experts claim that neither the new line of equipment nor the expansion of stores carrying Emca’s products is completely responsible for the recent success.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the experts’ claim? 
 
 (A) Emca’s two biggest rivals had their best 3-month period at the same time. 
 (B) The new stores carrying Emca products only carry the new equipment. 
 (C) Emca’s leadership has been virtually unchanged since the company’s inception. 
 (D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns. 
 (E) The new shovels and rakes have a higher profit margin than do the older shovels and rakes.

Question Type:   Strengthen
  Boil It Down:   Emca had a successful 3 months after introducing a new line of products and expanding to 12 new stores. However, experts say these two reasons aren’t the only reasons why they were successful. 
  Goal:    Find the option that best explains how Emca was successful beyond the two reasons already given.

Analysis:  
This question asks you to support the claim that the experts have made about the origins of Emca’s success.
 
 Conclusion:  Neither the new line of equipment nor the expansion of stores carrying Emca’s products is completely responsible for the recent success.
 
 Premise:  There is no evidence given for this conclusion. We must provide it.
 
It might be assumed that the two changes – new equipment line and new stores – are responsible for the 3-month success. The question asks for support that something else was responsible. Choice A does not give another reason, but if Emca’s rivals also had a good period, then we have reason to suspect that something else was responsible for Emca’s success, something that affected the industry generally. What that is, we don’t know, but it’s not necessary that we do.

(A) Emca’s two biggest rivals had their best 3-month period at the same time.
 This is the correct choice. As stated above, whatever the reason for the strong 3-month period, it seemed to have affected other similar businesses. Therefore, the reason for the successful period was not likely to be the new products and stores opened by one of them.

(B) The new stores carrying Emca products only carry the new equipment.
 By itself, this information does not tell us that the new equipment and new stores were not responsible. Perhaps the stores did well selling the new stuff, which would weaken the conclusion. Not enough information is given.

(C) Emca’s leadership has been virtually unchanged since the company’s inception. 
 If anything, this suggests that we can eliminate a possible alternate cause for the success – a change in management. Eliminating an alternate cause would weaken, not strengthen, the conclusion.

(D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns.
 Though this does suggest that the new equipment has not been responsible for the success, it does not address the issue of the new stores. The conclusion is that the successful 3-month period was neither the new equipment OR the new stores.

(E) The new shovels and rakes have a higher profit margin than do the older shovels and rakes.
 This seems to suggest that the new equipment WAS responsible for the success, and this would weaken the expert’s conclusion.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Well done TarPhi ! You cracked the code on this one! Kudos to you!

VerbalBot · 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.

Emca, a manufacturer of garden tools, had its most successful 3-month

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Emca, a manufacturer of garden tools, had its most successful 3-month

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards