Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of

Situation: Stores are stocking new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form. The concentrated form is packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space.
Explanation: Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of wasteful packaging.

The argument tries to explain the current situation in which the stores are stocking concentrated products by reasoning that consumers are concerned about effects of wasteful packaging.

Question: Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?

We need to find an option that undermines this explanation. Something that tells us that the stores may be stocking concentrated products for some other reason, not because consumers are concerned about effects of wasteful packaging.

(A) Few consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products.

It is good for our explanation that few (which basically means none or very very less) consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products. If many consumers thought that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products, they would want these small packages. It would be ecologically wasteful. Because they believe that these packages are concentrated and not just regular product, they know that the actual content in each small package is far more. One can dilute it and get a lot more of the regular product from this small package. Hence, instead of packaging regular product in big containers, packing concentrated product in small containers is more ecologically friendly.
Hence, this option does not undermine our explanation.

(B) The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.

Again, it is good for our explanation that these concentrated product packages can be recycled easily too. Consumers would want it then.

(C) Those concentrated cleaning products that are intended to be used diluted have clear instructions for dilution printed on their labels.

Irrelevant.

(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space.

This is an alternative explanation for why stores are stocking concentrated product. Not because consumers are worried about ecological impact but because they can increase revenue from their available shelf space by stocking smaller containers.
Hence it undermines the explanation provided by the argument.

(E) Consumer pressure has led to the elimination of wasteful cardboard packaging that was used for compact discs.

Irrelevant. If anything, it would make it more likely that consumer pressure against wasteful packaging has an impact.

Answer (D)

PanpaliaAnshul
_________________

This question would be categorized simply as a Weakener, but you're right that it's a bit unusual: we're not asked to weaken some traditional conclusion such as a prediction or a proposal, but to undermine the "explanation."

In this sense, the real Conclusion of this Argument is the very beginning of the second sentence: "This concern probably explains...." That is, what we have to weaken is that the customer concern IS in fact the reason for the store's stocking decision.

To weaken this, we're going to show that customer concern IS NOT the reason -- that there is some other reason. (D) does this: It shows how another reason, saving money on storage space, and not customer concern, is present, and thus potentially the actual reason the store had in mind.

In fact, Alternate Causes are one of the most common right answer choices for Weaken, Flaw, and Paradox questions on CR, so it's a really good idea to get used to seeing them and selecting them with confidence.

What i believe is that the First line is the conclusion.
The author OBSERVES that
1)stores have been quick to stock new
cleaning products that have been produced in a con-
centrated form.
2)The concentrated form is packaged in
smaller containers that use less plastic and require
less transportation space.

The Autor then concludes that this must have been a result of consumer `s concern for the environment.

D weaken the conclusion by offering an alternate explanation for Author`s Observation
_________________

The first sentence is definitely not a conclusion: It is stated as a fact and is used to support the author's main argument that it serves as an explanation. The word "probably" indicates that the second sentence is something the author is trying to prove, and not taken as a given fact, thus making it a Conclusion and not Evidence. However, I agree with mundasingh that the correct answer provides an alternate explanation, a very common right answer choice in the GMAT.

Hi Adam Thanks for replying.Thanks for reminding me that A Fact cant be a conclusion.This slipped off my mind.
I am trying my best to clarify my doubts .
A Conclusion is an Opinion.
Opinions cant be verified.
I read that A Fact can be Verified
The First Sentence is Many consumers are concerned about the ecological
effects of wasteful packaging

We cant verify this.We dont how many is Many Customers.We also cant verify that Many consumers are concerned abt the Ecology.This is the Opinion of the author.
_________________

Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of wasteful packaging.This concern probably explains why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form. The concentrated form is packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space.

IF A GIVEN PACKAGING IS SMALLER BUT IS STOCKED FULLY IN SAME SHELF SPACE AND HAS INCREASED REVENUE..... MEANS HIGHER RECYCLING..... THEN EVEN IF INDIVIDUAL PACKAGE MAY HAVE LESS PLASTIC....THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL USE AND EFFECT WILL REMAIN SAME OR INCREASE....

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?

(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space...........CORRECT................

Is this question is poorly worded???

Regards,
Rrsnathan

I appears as good grammar. Even if the question is poorly worded, the reason stays the same; more so, we should always expect the stimulus to be worded poorly or at least trickily. We need to find a statement that seriously disrupts the argument. The cause is that consumers require eco-friendly product; the effect is that grocers are stocking smaller products. In order to undermine a statement, one of the following must be present:
1. Find an alternative effect.
2. Show when the cause happens, the effect doesn't.
3. Show when the effect happens, the cause doesn't.
4. Reverse the relationship.
5. Undermine the data.

Your answer is right, but there is a little flaw in your logic of "fully stocking the same shelf". If you consider that the liquid is concentrated, it may not be required to fully consume the same amount of shelf space.

Argument is making the claim that consumers are concerned about environmental effects resulting from packaging utilized by companies. It argues that because a company happened to change their packaging, it must have been due to pressure from the consumer base. This can be argued as false on many levels, if we were speaking to each other face to face. However, in GMAT setting, we need to find the option that points to company making decision for reason other than consumer pressure.

D gives us that. Company wants to increase revenue. Big surprise, right? Thus, bingo! we have our answer.

Lets take this question with analogy. liquid soap vs solid soap.

Facts: Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of wasteful packaging. This concern probably explains why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form.

Explanation : The concentrated form is packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space.

Objective: Weaken the explanation, while fact is fact and conclusion remains the same.

Pre-think : So stores have big stock of solid soap cause packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space. i say stores are doing it for some other reason. lets say more demand. they take less space. more profit margin. handy. etc.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?

(A) Few consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products. --- few? not impacting explanation.

(B) The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged. --- so recycle for both is equal. no diff at all. fact falls. bad choice.

(C) Those concentrated cleaning products that are intended to be used diluted have clear instructions for dilution printed on their labels. --- good thing but explanation stand tall.

(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space. --- on the line of pre thinking.

(E) Consumer pressure has led to the elimination of wasteful cardboard packaging that was used for compact discs. --- irrelevant
_________________

We need to find an answer choice that says that the reason the supermarkets opted for the concentrated form is not because of their genuine appreciation of consumer's concern but because of some other concern and in all likelihood some revenue related concern.
Option D is bang on target as it says that the concentrated form generates more revenue from a given shelf space.

The key to this question to avoid confusion is :
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?

Not a typical weaken question:)

Most simply put, this question is a classic weaken-type question in which:
The argument says: X leads to Y
and the answer reveals that yes Y did happen but not due to X; it's an altogether separate reason Z which lead to Y
_________________

VeritasKarishma - Can you pls help with detailed analysis of this question ?

Thanks,
Anshul P

Hi KarishmaB
I agree option D provides alternate explanation. It does not, however, explains that even considering ecological impact, the stores could make profit. Why are we assuming that making profit and being ecologically effective are mutually exclusive events ?

We are not claiming that they are mutually exclusive.

We are questioning this: Consumer sentiment explains why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form.

Consider a dialogue between two people:

A: The store is stocking concentrated product now.
B: It is because consumers like environmentally friendly products.
A: No, the store can use its shelf space more profitably that is why.

This argument of A's undermines the explanation given by B. It doesn't prove that B's explanation is incorrect. It just undermines it. That is what we are looking for.
_________________