It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 06:29

### 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

# In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 249

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 9

Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2009, 06:10
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space in inverse proportion to the likely size of their sales. Airport and supermarket bookstalls stock only books that are expected to sell in large numbers. Consequently, those who buy books at such book stalls have to do so without any guidance whatever from the book reviewers whose work published in respectable articles.

Which of the following is a valid criticism of the argument above?

A. bookstalls like those found at airports and in supermarkets are designed to induce people to buy books on impulse.
B. The assortment of books available at airport bookstalls is different from the that of books available at supermarket bookstalls.
C.The fact the book is expected to sell well does not guarantee that actual sales will be large.
D. Many who later come to be respected as book reviewers start their careers by writing for trashy magazines
E. The conclusion that respectable periodicals never publish reviews of projected best sellers is unwarranted.
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 9

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 489

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2009, 18:28
rampuria wrote:
In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space in inverse proportion to the likely size of their sales. Airport and supermarket bookstalls stock only books that are expected to sell in large numbers. Consequently, those who buy books at such book stalls have to do so without any guidance whatever from the book reviewers whose work published in respectable articles.

Which of the following is a valid criticism of the argument above?

A. bookstalls like those found at airports and in supermarkets are designed to induce people to buy books on impulse. This is not criticism. This though will strengthen the argument.
B. The assortment of books available at airport bookstalls is different from the that of books available at supermarket bookstalls. No such comparison mentioned in the argument.
C.The fact the book is expected to sell well does not guarantee that actual sales will be large. This is correct. The argument mentioned expected to sell well. This does not mean it will actually sell well. Thus, buyers might still be able to see book reviews.
D. Many who later come to be respected as book reviewers start their careers by writing for trashy magazines Not mentioned in argument.
E. The conclusion that respectable periodicals never publish reviews of projected best sellers is unwarranted. Too extreme. The argument did not say respectable periodicals never publish reviews of projected best sellers.

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 855

Kudos [?]: 504 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2009, 01:44
The argument assumes the opposite of what it says in C. This is one of the common routes to weaken an argument.

Kudos [?]: 504 [0], given: 7

Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 18

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

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2009, 10:34
IMO C

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

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 133

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2009, 15:27
IMO C.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2009, 07:32
I would go with A.

I dont think C is true because:
- The advertising space is based on likely level of sales (ie expected)
- The stocking of books at airport and supermarkets is based on expected level of sales too.

Thus even if expected level does not guarantee actual, the buyer will not be exposed to book reviews, assuming that the two (advertisers and stalls) have the same criteria to decide on expected level of sales.

I think A is true coz it brings a new explanation. It states that the reviews whatsoever (of good books or bad books) have no role in determining the purchase at these places. Hence, the reviews are not really related to purchase at these places.

This is what I think at least.

OA?

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1344

Kudos [?]: 2010 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2009, 08:54
rampuria wrote:
In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space in inverse proportion to the likely size of their sales. Airport and supermarket bookstalls stock only books that are expected to sell in large numbers. Consequently, those who buy books at such book stalls have to do so without any guidance whatever from the book reviewers whose work published in respectable articles.

Which of the following is a valid criticism of the argument above?

I'm curious to know the source of the question, since it doesn't strike me as a realistic GMAT question. There are two answers I find equally compelling here, though neither is one of the answers provided in the posts above.

The conclusion of the argument is an extreme one: "Those who buy books at airports and supermarkets get no guidance whatsoever from reviewers who publish in respectable periodicals." We need to find a legitimate criticism of this argument:

rampuria wrote:
A. bookstalls like those found at airports and in supermarkets are designed to induce people to buy books on impulse.

This has nothing to do with the conclusion, which is concerned with whether people read reviews of these books.

rampuria wrote:
B. The assortment of books available at airport bookstalls is different from the that of books available at supermarket bookstalls.

Again, this has nothing to do with the conclusion.

rampuria wrote:
C.The fact the book is expected to sell well does not guarantee that actual sales will be large.

The books stocked by airports are those expected to sell well. Similarly, respectable periodicals make decisions about what books to review based on expected sales. Actual sales are irrelevant to the argument.

rampuria wrote:
D. Many who later come to be respected as book reviewers start their careers by writing for trashy magazines

If I make certain assumptions, this seems like a perfectly plausible criticism of the argument. The argument claims that people buying books at airports get no guidance from reviewers who publish in respectable periodicals. It does not claim that people don't get guidance from the periodicals themselves. If the reviewers who publish in respectable periodicals also publish reviews in other places, perhaps people do get guidance from those reviewers - from the reviews they publish in trashy magazines, for example. If all of the reviewers who now publish in respectable periodicals used to publish book reviews in trashy magazines, and if trashy magazines publish reviews of airport stall books, readers may have had access to extensive book reviews of airport books by these writers - not, perhaps, of the latest publications, but there may certainly be older books on the bookstands in airport book stores. So I can justify D on those grounds, though it requires a few assumptions - in particular, I'm assuming that airport book stores still have older books on their shelves. Without information about that, D is a potentially valid criticism.

rampuria wrote:
E. The conclusion that respectable periodicals never publish reviews of projected best sellers is unwarranted.

This, however, is certainly a valid criticism. We know that "in respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space in inverse proportion to the likely size of their sales." Well, if two things are inversely proportional, as one goes up, the other goes down. That is, the higher the expected sales of a book, the less space the respectable periodical will allocate to the book's review. Notice that does not mean that the book gets no review at all from the periodical -- it only means it gets a shorter review than a book which is not expected to sell well. E identifies a flaw in the argument - the argument misunderstands the meaning of 'inverse proportion' - and is a perfectly valid criticism.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Kudos [?]: 2010 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 2

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

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2009, 00:51
I Would go with E

Conclusion : Those who buy books at airport or supermarket bookstalls should buy books without some reivew from respectable article in periodicals. Because books which are introduced in periodicals are given space in inverse proportion to the expected sales and airport and supermarket bookstalls are stocked with books which are expected to sell in large number.

Analyze above item by item
* magazine : no review for big sales expected books
* bookstalls : stock only big sales expected books
* customer in bookstalls : they should be meet some books in there for the fisrt time because they might not being informed from magazine.

So If magazine once published review of big sales expected books, then there should be possibility that customer might have been noted about bestseller book at bookstall. Regarding to this, conclusion should be wrong.

I once confused with A too, but A is not about the likelihood whether people is noted or not about books.

What is OA?

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

Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 195

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 3

Schools: Stanford...Wait, I will come!!!

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2009, 00:57
rampuria wrote:
In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space in inverse proportion to the likely size of their sales. Airport and supermarket bookstalls stock only books that are expected to sell in large numbers. Consequently, those who buy books at such book stalls have to do so without any guidance whatever from the book reviewers whose work published in respectable articles.

Which of the following is a valid criticism of the argument above?

The criticism can be:
1) they publish the criticism
2) All the books are available and the sales is not affected much
3)Guidance is available

A. bookstalls like those found at airports and in supermarkets are designed to induce people to buy books on impulse. its not a criticism
B. The assortment of books available at airport bookstalls is different from the that of books available at supermarket bookstalls. Also its not a criticism
C.The fact the book is expected to sell well does not guarantee that actual sales will be large.Keep it on hold
D. Many who later come to be respected as book reviewers start their careers by writing for trashy magazines Not related
E. The conclusion that respectable periodicals never publish reviews of projected best sellers is unwarranted.

keep it on hold
So out of C & E, E is better.

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2009, 07:53
I think E

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 8

Re: CR periodcials   [#permalink] 28 Oct 2009, 07:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In respectable periodicals, books are given reviewing space

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.