New: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more ret

This what I felt when I read E, E mentions If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.. It doesn't mention who subsidised whereas our argument concerns only government subsidised distribution of fillers. E takes a broad scope and hence loses to C

If you negate "E" then it will be "not necessarily most retail stores will distribute fliers" which means that some will which indicate that prices could indeed fall.

However in "C" , if u negate it will be " Not necessarily MORE retail stores will distribute fliers" which means that price will not change and conclusion falls apart

the missing conditional chain is: if the government subsidies the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
hence C.

Hi VeritasPrepKarishma !

I think it's a exact replica of an OG problem.I usually lose my way while dealing with such problems . I mean in the farrago of language and information I miss out on the key logical deduction.
Can you please guide me how to tackle such problems ?

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
SR

Here is my take by negation, though a little bit convoluted.

Conclusion: If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers and the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.

C. If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.

NS: If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, NOT more retail establishments would distribute fliers.

This means that the number of retail establishments that distribute fliers after subsidy would be less than or equal to the number of retail establishments that distributed fliers before subsidy. So, price will not decrease; it may remain stable (if the number of retail establishments that distribute fliers after subsidy is equal to the number of retail establishments that distributed fliers before subsidy) or increase (if the number of retail establishments that distribute fliers after subsidy is less than the number of retail establishments that distributed fliers before subsidy). Therefore, conclusion falls apart. Correct answer.

E: If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.

NS: If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then NOT most retail establishments would distribute fliers.

This means that though MOST retail establishments will not distribute fliers, SOME retail establishments will distribute fliers. The number of this SOME retail establishments may be more than or equal to or less than the number of retail establishments that distributed fliers before subsidy. If the number of retail establishments that distribute fliers after subsidy is more than the number of retail establishments that distributed fliers before subsidy, the price will decrease. So, conclusion will remain same. Not correct answer.

I am not expert, so I may be wrong. If so, please correct me.

Conclusion: the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.
A,B and E simply do not talk about the impact to the cost. So they are out.
I fell for D but C is a better choice.
C - The more the fliers the cheaper the prices will be (I did not think about the later half of the sentence but the stem mentions that the retailers who distributes fliers reduce their prices. It seemed like an assumption to me but it is not)
D- I guess D is fine as well but it is more of a trap answer. But it kinda goes out of scope too. We are not concerned about retailers who do not distribute fliers.

Hence C
+1 for the question.

Thank you!

GMATNinja

Please explain "what the argument pre-supposes?" mean, does it mean to find the assumption?

Yes, it's asking for the assumption.

The highlighted part above says - " The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers " And thats exactly what option C is. But since this is already given in the passage as a FACT, how can we select that as an assumption? The assumption has to be a missing link between the facts and the conclusion. But here, the first statement is ideally a fact, so how can that be an assumption? Bunuel VeritasKarishma Really confused with this question, please help.

Of the given options, only (C) makes sense.

Lower the cost, more distributions
retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers.

Conclusion: If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.

Now note that only the conclusion talks about subsidy by Govt. The premises do not mention it.
What if subsidy by Govt increases the cost somewhere else? To establish that subsidies will reduce cost to consumers, we need to establish that subsidies will lead to more distribution of fliers.

Though I agree that I was not expecting this. I was looking for something that talked about these retailers charging more for other products (not mentioned in flyers etc) or something to that effect which said that overall cost to consumer may not reduce.
Again, of the given options, only (C) makes sense but this is not an official question so I don't need to worry much about it.

A: Some of the most moderately priced retail establishments do not currently have the financial resources to distribute fliers.
What about low-priced retailed establishments? what about high-priced retail establishment? Besides that the author need not assume this to arrive at the conclusion.
B: Consumers will buy more retail items if the overall cost of these items decreases.
Conclusion is about drop in the retail price not about buying capacities of the customer
C: If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
Accurate, goes along the lines presented in the context of the argument.
D: If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.
Author is thinking that the proportion of the retail establishments that start distributing fliers would increase, leading to a drop in the retail price. Mere 'Drop in the price' is not his idea.
E: If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.
Similar to C but is broader in scope. Not sure who the provider of the subsidy is.

it specifically describes the susidized rates for retailers. y would the govt subsudise rates of fliers for only retailers?

Correct Answer: (C) If the government subsidized the distribution of fliers, more retail establishments would distribute fliers.
The argument concludes that subsidizing the distribution of fliers will result in lower costs for retail items for consumers. For this conclusion to hold, it must assume that the subsidy will lead to more retail establishments distributing fliers. This is critical because the argument relies on the connection between distributing fliers and charging lower prices.
If subsidizing flier distribution does not lead to more establishments distributing fliers, the argument falls apart.
(C) directly supports the argument by establishing the necessary causal link.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

(A) Some of the most moderately priced retail establishments do not currently have the financial resources to distribute fliers.
Incorrect: This might explain why some establishments do not currently distribute fliers, but it is not necessary to the argument. The argument is concerned with whether the subsidy will lead to more establishments distributing fliers, not why they currently do not.

(B) Consumers will buy more retail items if the overall cost of these items decreases.
Incorrect: This might be a secondary effect of the price decrease, but the argument does not rely on this assumption. The conclusion focuses only on whether prices will decrease, not on consumer behavior.

(D) If more retail establishments distribute fliers listing items at lower prices, some retail establishments who do not distribute fliers will lower their prices on these items.
Incorrect: While this could contribute to an overall decrease in prices, the argument does not depend on this effect. The conclusion only assumes that establishments distributing fliers charge less, not that other establishments will follow suit.

(E) If the distribution of fliers by retail establishments were subsidized, then most retail establishments would distribute fliers.
Incorrect: The argument does not require that most establishments distribute fliers—only that more establishments do so. "Most" is too strong and unnecessary for the argument to hold.

I didn't understand the question

Lower cost of distributing fliers = More retail establishments will distribute them.
When it's cheaper to distribute fliers, more stores will do it.

Retail establishments that distribute fliers charge less for the items listed in them.
Stores that use fliers tend to sell those items cheaper than stores that don't

Conclusion: If the government subsidizes (pays for) the distribution of fliers, the cost of retail items for consumers will decrease.
The idea is that cheaper flier distribution will lead to lower prices for customers.

what the author of the argument takes for granted or believes to be true without directly stating it:
For example:
- If the government pays to make flier distribution cheaper, will that really result in lower retail prices?
- Are there any gaps in the argument that need to be filled?