GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 24 Sep 2019, 02:00

### 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

# If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2018, 22:36
If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate, the shop's owner will be forced to close the store. Raising the prices of the goods sold at ToySMart by 10% will help make up the shortfall in the store's income; this change will therefore protect ToySMart from having to close.

B. The rise in prices will have no effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same. - Incorrect - Negate this -- so the rise in price can have an effect that can range from insignificant to a significant decrease on the number of goods sold.
"no effect " is vague and can refer to an increase or decrease in the number of goods sold

C. The rise in prices will not induce visitors who otherwise would not have shoplifted to shoplift items they can now not afford. - Correct - Negate this and the argument falls apart - the rise in prices will induce more visitors to shoplift

Negation of B - The rise in prices will have an effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same.

Generally, if the price of an item increases, then the number of the item sold will decrease.
1. When we negate option B, can we assume that no effect "no effect " is vague and can refer to an increase or decrease in the number of goods sold ?
2. Even if assume that if the price of an item increases, then the number of the item sold will decrease. For option B, we don't know whether the decrease is minuscule or a significant number.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , ChiranjeevSingh, GMATGuruNY , KarishmaB , other experts-- please enlighten

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Posts: 254
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V32
GPA: 4
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2018, 22:52
I went with option B because of my pre-thinking. However, B is incorrect. The best strategy for assumption questions is to use the NEGATION strategy and see whether the negated statement destroys the argument, if its true.

Here, for example, Option B says,
Quote:
The rise in prices will have no effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same.

Negation of this statement would be - The rise in prices will have an effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same.

BUT, The catch here is - WHAT KIND OF EFFECT? Positive or negative? Will the sales go up? or go down? We don't know. The argument still holds true even if the negated statement is true.
_________________

Vaibhav

Sky is the limit. 800 is the limit.

~GMAC
Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2018
Posts: 100
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2018, 23:24
shubham2312 wrote:
maheshaero20 wrote:
If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate, the shop's owner will be forced to close the store. Raising the prices of the goods sold at ToySMart by 10% will help make up the shortfall in the store's income; this change will therefore protect ToySMart from having to close.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

B. The rise in prices will have no effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same.
C. The rise in prices will not induce visitors who otherwise would not have shoplifted to shoplift items they can now not afford.

i am also facing same question why C is better answer than B.
although i was able to answer the question correctly but my reasoning i think is flawed.
i used the logic sales are not related to shoplifting directly in any way,means out of 2 parts of the option statement one is saying price rise will not have any effect on sales than 2nd statement should present contrast or something of that sort.

someone kindly throw some light on the same.

Hey shubham2312,

I also rounded up to the above two options. Here is my insight on the same -

(B) The rise in prices will have no effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same.

Suppose here we assume, that a customer goes in the store and is wanting to buy a puppet for say \$20. Now when he goes in, he sees that the puppet which he thought was to be for \$20 is now for \$22 (increase of 10%). Now his mind says that I want to buy the puppet,even if it for \$22, but his pocket says not more than \$20 . So his best option would be to buy a smaller puppet that would be equivalent to \$20 or less. Now when he buys the same our statement is also consistent with the same number of goods being sold and rate of shoplifting also being the same but still the profits would not have been the same as they were expected to be as we can consider the same scenarios on a much more costlier product of say \$500 and that too with many people.

Hence in my opinion because of the above reasoning B is wrong and C is the only remaining answer.

Also I thought of a funnier version of this. What if the shoplifters think that I will lift anything above \$21. Now when the price increases. He will lift this puppet as well making the buyer forced to buy the cheaper puppet.

Hope this all makes sense. Please let me know in case of any clarifications
_________________
Regards
---------------------------------
A Kudos is one more question and its answer understood by somebody !!!
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 236
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2018, 16:13
Skywalker18 wrote:
Negation of B - The rise in prices will have an effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same.

Generally, if the price of an item increases, then the number of the item sold will decrease.
1. When we negate option B, can we assume that no effect "no effect " is vague and can refer to an increase or decrease in the number of goods sold ?
2. Even if assume that if the price of an item increases, then the number of the item sold will decrease. For option B, we don't know whether the decrease is minuscule or a significant number.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , ChiranjeevSingh, GMATGuruNY , KarishmaB , other experts-- please enlighten

Hi Skywalker18,

Yes, all your thinking is exactly correct here While we can assume that here if the price of something increases, the number sold will decrease (if the number sold changes), we don't know the extent of the change. As you said, it might be minuscule, in which case the argument's conclusion still holds. That's why C is the better option

-Carolyn
_________________
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1721
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2018, 05:24

Official Explanation

The owner of ToySMart has a problem with shoplifting causing a loss of profits, which he wants to solve by raising his prices. To make this conclusion, he would have to assume, first of all, that raising his prices would make him more money, which is logical. Second, he would have to assume that raising the prices would not exacerbate the existing problem with shoplifting. (C) best addresses this issue.

The shop owner hasn’t made any assumptions (in this passage, at least) about what people will buy once he raises his prices (A). This is also important in evaluating (B). Note that the passage tells us that if the current rate of shoplifting continues, the store will have to close--if the rate of shoplifting continues, the owner would still be losing money. The higher prices might or might not make up for this shortfall, but we don’t have enough information to evaluate this point.

Choice (D) is irrelevant. In general, most shoppers at any store are wholly ignorant of the profits of the store's owner. It would imply an extremely loyal and personal relationship if the majority of shoppers cared this much about the owner's profits, and there is nothing in the question justifying this sort of bond.

Finally, the effects on other stores (E) do not come into play in this argument. This argument relies on the owner’s assumption that his price rise will fix, or at least ameliorate, ToySMart financial problems, which do not (in this scenario) involve other stores.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Intern
Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 19
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2018, 07:33
Option B - The rise in prices will have no effect on the number of goods sold, even if the rate of shoplifting remains the same - is to far reaching of an assumption. If there is SOME EFFECT (positive surge) or lets say some negative surge (but not substantial) than the increase in revenue, then we are OK. this doesn't hurt the argument.
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Posts: 3
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2018, 18:22
Here's what I come up with: It says the store will be closed because of shoplifting, but it says nothing about how shoplifting will cause the store to be closed. Maybe it is because the concern about the security. The shoplifter may harm others in the store. We automatically assume that shoplifting causes items in store decrease, so the store has to be closed. I know it may sound ridiculous but it's the only way I can explain why we eliminate B.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Posts: 388
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2018, 23:46
Just negating B and C makes the difference. In B, after negating, the sales could increase or decrease. Thus, it is an ambiguous situation. However, with C being negated, the conclusion shatters completely. This is what made me choose C over B. Negation in assumption questions is always the life savior.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Posts: 55
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2019, 18:35
Here is the OA from Magoosh -

Answer = (C). The owner of ToySMart has a problem with shoplifting causing a loss of profits, which he wants to solve by raising his prices. To make this conclusion, he would have to assume, first of all, that raising his prices would make him more money, which is logical. Second, he would have to assume that raising the prices would not exacerbate the existing problem with shoplifting. (C) best addresses this issue.

The shop owner hasn’t made any assumptions (in this passage, at least) about what people will buy once he raises his prices (A). This is also important in evaluating (B). Note that the passage tells us that if the current rate of shoplifting continues, the store will have to close--if the rate of shoplifting continues, the owner would still be losing money. The higher prices might or might not make up for this shortfall, but we don’t have enough information to evaluate this point.

Choice (D) is irrelevant. In general, most shoppers at any store are wholly ignorant of the profits of the store's owner. It would imply an extremely loyal and personal relationship if the majority of shoppers cared this much about the owner's profits, and there is nothing in the question justifying this sort of bond.

Finally, the effects on other stores (E) do not come into play in this argument. This argument relies on the owner’s assumption that his price rise will fix, or at least ameliorate, ToySMart financial problems, which do not (in this scenario) involve other stores.
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2016
Posts: 30
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2019, 09:42
If B is negated- The rise will have some effect on number(Can be any number such as 1). Hence the shop may still just be protected.
But if C is negated- More shoplifting. This has not been accounted for. Hence shop will not be protected. So, C is correct.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 9
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 3
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2019, 16:19
Kanika3agg wrote:
B would be equally correct assumption as much as C.
Let???s negate B - The rise in prices will have an effect on the number of goods sold, even if the shoplifting rate remains the same.
Logically, the number of goods would be less sold which would mean less profitability as compared to now. This can also close the shop down.
There is no flaw in B which we can use to eliminate that option.

B does give the feels of a right answer, but actually is not. Option B simply states that the rise in prices would have no effect on sales. Let's assume that it does have a negative impact on the sales, but the option doesn't say by how much. What if the price increase of 10% is sufficient enough to counter the effects of reduced sales? The plan would still work. You'd see that negating option B leaves room for ambiguity and does not definitively destroy the argument.

On the other hand, consider negating option C. If people were to shoplift even more because of increased prices, then the rate of shoplifting would actually increase (which the argument needs to be constant in order to negate with the 10% rise in rates) and there would be no benefit from the 10% increase. This completely destroys the argument.

Hence option C is logically correct here.
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2019, 22:27
Option C is better because, in the first statement it is evident that shop will close if the rate of shoplifting is even at current level. In Option C, it states that the plan will not increase rate of shoplifting, whereas in the stimulus it is already stated that 10% increase will be enough to make the shop afloat.
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2019, 22:31
veteranrookie wrote:
I am not sure what is wrong with B i just feel we are not concerned with people worried about the price. We are concerned about shoplifting so I just want to stick to that.
So if he increases the price the shortcoming would be met. And it WOULD not result in increase in the shoplifting too.
And I guess this is the assumption the author is making.
Rather than worrying about the impact on sale by the price increase.

Though I also felt B is the answer in the first glance.

Sent from my MI PAD using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The one problem with option B is "no effect", just negate the option B, it says the plan will have some effect, can say what effect, therefore option B is not the best option. We are assuming that its a negative efect and logic also says its a negative effect but assumption in an assumption doesn't work. Yes if it was written as negative effect option B would have been good.
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2018
Posts: 3
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2019, 11:34
Please explain why C is a better option than B.
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
Posts: 64
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.22
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2019, 00:46
Kanika3agg wrote:
B would be equally correct assumption as much as C.
Let???s negate B - The rise in prices will have an effect on the number of goods sold, even if the shoplifting rate remains the same.
Logically, the number of goods would be less sold which would mean less profitability as compared to now. This can also close the shop down.
There is no flaw in B which we can use to eliminate that option.

But rise in prices will have an effect- it can be positive as well as negative. a positive effect on the number of goods sold will not destroy the conclusion. Whereas C is more articulate and nukes the conclusion on negation
Intern
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 11
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2019, 02:08
Premise - Current Rate of shoplifting -> shop closed. (The rate is sufficient enough for the owner to encounter losses and he will be forced to close the shop.)
How to Tackle this problem - Raise the prices of products by 10%. (This will be suffice to offset the losses encountered by the owner and he will be able to at least able to run the shop.)

Assumption - This will be suffice to offset the losses encountered by the owner and he will be able to at least able to run the shop.
There will be no significant decrease in the sales of products.

Conclusion - This will prevent store from having to close.

Always look for the missing link between premise and conclusion.

A - every product is increased by 10%. It will still be sufficient for the store owner to offset losses.
B - in line with pre thinking but an extreme word. No effect. Let’s negate this.
If there is a only a little impact, which is not sufficient enough, then even after negation, conclusion still holds.

C - This option assumes two step forward but if it is negated conclusion falls apart. Correct Answer.

D - irrelevant.
E - We are taking about a particular store. What happens to other store, who cares?
Re: If shoplifting at ToySMart continues at the current rate   [#permalink] 26 Aug 2019, 02:08

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 36 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by