It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 20:13

### 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

# Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 91 [1], given: 472

Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2016, 19:38
1
KUDOS
gmatprep09 wrote:
CAn someone explain the appraoch to tackle this question? Thanks.

Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent. Other retail stores tried, without success, to attract customers away from the Friendly chain. Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.

Each of the following, in conjunction with the information presented above, could be true EXCEPT:

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.

Hi chetan2u,

_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Kudos [?]: 91 [1], given: 472

Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Posts: 1

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

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2016, 08:02
1
KUDOS
I was also inclined towards A. But thinking of the situation where the regulation X was - importing volumes of computers, A could be a valid situation - Friendly chain retaining its sales volume and other retailers experiencing a drop in sales volume but the overall volume increases.

D seems to be free of this error

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

Intern
Status: Self Redemption
Affiliations: Open
Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 91

Umar: Firdaus
GPA: 3.45
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 10:50
For me D or E was supposed to be the correct one. Went for E on the basis that any information outside the argument in must be True Questions is a wrong answer choice.
but , d looks better on second thought. more appropriate

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 91

Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2016, 17:05
kanigmat011 wrote:
Is it A or D.
To me A makes sense...but if applying elimination strategy we have two choices C & D which are opposite to each other so one of them needs to be correct.
Although I picked C,,but option D explanation fails to convince me.

I see what you mean, but the scope of 'D' is really far out there from the original question. There are far too many conjectures in that answer choice. I believe that is the best explanation relative to all other answer choices. I think it is the most clear cut explanation besides examining the logic and premise for each answer choice.

I chose 'A' but realized my mistake in comparing it to all other answer choices.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 372

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 197

Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2016, 04:51
makingit01 wrote:
kanigmat011 wrote:
Is it A or D.
To me A makes sense...but if applying elimination strategy we have two choices C & D which are opposite to each other so one of them needs to be correct.
Although I picked C,,but option D explanation fails to convince me.

I see what you mean, but the scope of 'D' is really far out there from the original question. There are far too many conjectures in that answer choice. I believe that is the best explanation relative to all other answer choices. I think it is the most clear cut explanation besides examining the logic and premise for each answer choice.

I chose 'A' but realized my mistake in comparing it to all other answer choices.

top150-cr-over-an-eleven-month-period-during-which-national-retail-206111.html?fl=similar
See the above post A is the answer!

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 197

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5859 [2], given: 117

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2016, 05:46
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
smartguy595 wrote:
gmatprep09 wrote:
CAn someone explain the appraoch to tackle this question? Thanks.

Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent. Other retail stores tried, without success, to attract customers away from the Friendly chain. Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.

Each of the following, in conjunction with the information presented above, could be true EXCEPT:

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.

Hi chetan2u,

Hi,
just saw the TAG, if you use name, the member is informed..

lets see the Q and work out each sentence so that we can eliminate choices straight way..
1) Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent..
-- the sales were stable overall
-- FCS chain increased its sales by 100%, and it resulted in 7% of TOTAL

Inference-- If FCS has increased its sales with the total sales stable, Few would have seen decreased sales

2)Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.
After X was introduced, the total share of FCS dropped to 4% of TOTAL
--- However the FCS sales number remained same
Inference-- Sales of few others would have increased after X

Lets see the choices

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.
It is COULD be true..
If the share of FCS has reduced to 4%, without an effect on its sales, the TOTAL would have increased..
If TOTAL has increased, there has to be atleast ONE retailer who has to account for this increase..
so CANNOT be true in any case..

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.
Since we know the TOTAL remained SAME, but FCS doubled its sales, It is possible that the increase of FCS resulted in some loss to all others..
since it is could be true, YES possible

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.
Since after X was introduced, FCS share decreased to 1/2 of total, this COULD be true

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.
We know that some competitors increased their share. It could be anything as nothing is specified..
and we are ;looking for COULD be true.. so POSSIBLE

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.
There is nothing that says this could not have happened.. so POSSIBLE
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5859 [2], given: 117

Senior Manager
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 472

Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2016, 22:44
Hi chetan2u,

Thanks for the excellent explanation provided.

But OA is 'd'
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 472

Intern
Joined: 28 Mar 2016
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 03:07
Can anyone please post the OE for this question? I cannot understand the reason why A is not the correct answer.

Thanks.
_________________

Thanks.
Ankit Bansal

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 26 May 2013
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 26

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.6
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 05:19
For A, can't it be the case that every retailer experienced a drop in sales, but the drop for Friendly was significantly higher than the others ? Because question does not necessary say that the sales were stable after the regulation.
By the way, the same question is asked in the forum and the OA given there is A

top150-cr-over-an-eleven-month-period-during-which-national-retail-206111.html?fl=similar

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 26

Intern
Joined: 26 May 2013
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 26

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.6
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 05:19
1
KUDOS
For A, can't it be the case that every retailer experienced a drop in sales, but the drop for Friendly was significantly higher than the others ? Because question does not necessary say that the sales were stable after the regulation.
By the way, the same question is asked in the forum and the OA given there is A

top150-cr-over-an-eleven-month-period-during-which-national-retail-206111.html?fl=similar

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 26

Intern
Joined: 28 Mar 2016
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 06:22
[quote="knuckleduster"]For A, can't it be the case that every retailer experienced a drop in sales, but the drop for Friendly was significantly higher than the others ? Because question does not necessary say that the sales were stable after the regulation.
By the way, the same question is asked in the forum and the OA given there is A

Hi. I thought of that too, but as the share of Friendly as decreased in percentage but not in absolute terms, the total sales in the market would have increased. If that is the case, it is not possible that the sales of all the other manufacturers decreased.
_________________

Thanks.
Ankit Bansal

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 07:13
smartguy595 wrote:
Hi chetan2u,

Thanks for the excellent explanation provided.

But OA is 'd'

Hi,

I do not find ANY WAY 'A" can be true.. so A has to be the answer..
I am not aware of the source and their OA and OE, but I do not find any reasons why A should not be the answer?..
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2016
Posts: 5

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

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 14:16
chetan2u wrote:
smartguy595 wrote:
gmatprep09 wrote:
CAn someone explain the appraoch to tackle this question? Thanks.

Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent. Other retail stores tried, without success, to attract customers away from the Friendly chain. Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.

Each of the following, in conjunction with the information presented above, could be true EXCEPT:

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.

Hi chetan2u,

lets see the Q and work out each sentence so that we can eliminate choices straight way..
1) Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent..
-- the sales were stable overall
-- FCS chain increased its sales by 100%, and it resulted in 7% of TOTAL

Inference-- If FCS has increased its sales with the total sales stable, Few would have seen decreased sales

2)Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.
After X was introduced, the total share of FCS dropped to 4% of TOTAL
--- However the FCS sales number remained same
Inference-- Sales of few others would have increased after X

Lets see the choices

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.
It is COULD be true..
If the share of FCS has reduced to 4%, without an effect on its sales, the TOTAL would have increased..
If TOTAL has increased, there has to be atleast ONE retailer who has to account for this increase..
so CANNOT be true in any case..

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.
Since we know the TOTAL remained SAME, but FCS doubled its sales, It is possible that the increase of FCS resulted in some loss to all others..
since it is could be true, YES possible

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.
Since after X was introduced, FCS share decreased to 1/2 of total, this COULD be true

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.
We know that some competitors increased their share. It could be anything as nothing is specified..
and we are ;looking for COULD be true.. so POSSIBLE

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.
There is nothing that says this could not have happened.. so POSSIBLE

WHAT IF NEW COMPANIES ENTER THE MARKET!
At first i picked A as the most obvious one. Drop in the sales of ALL others, stable sales of Friendy, thus we could not explain the drop of the share. But after reading the Stimulus and the possible answers with no rush of the counter, i realized that the drop in share of the market could happen if Friendly has a stable venture, all existing companies have a decrease and some other companies enter the business. This could result in Friendlys loss of a part of the market. So IMO the answer must be the posted OA

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

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 20:15
anprappas wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
lets see the Q and work out each sentence so that we can eliminate choices straight way..
1) Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent..
-- the sales were stable overall
-- FCS chain increased its sales by 100%, and it resulted in 7% of TOTAL

Inference-- If FCS has increased its sales with the total sales stable, Few would have seen decreased sales

2)Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.
After X was introduced, the total share of FCS dropped to 4% of TOTAL
--- However the FCS sales number remained same
Inference-- Sales of few others would have increased after X

Lets see the choices

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.
It is COULD be true..
If the share of FCS has reduced to 4%, without an effect on its sales, the TOTAL would have increased..
If TOTAL has increased, there has to be atleast ONE retailer who has to account for this increase..
so CANNOT be true in any case..

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.
Since we know the TOTAL remained SAME, but FCS doubled its sales, It is possible that the increase of FCS resulted in some loss to all others..
since it is could be true, YES possible

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.
Since after X was introduced, FCS share decreased to 1/2 of total, this COULD be true

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.
We know that some competitors increased their share. It could be anything as nothing is specified..
and we are ;looking for COULD be true.. so POSSIBLE

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.
There is nothing that says this could not have happened.. so POSSIBLE

WHAT IF NEW COMPANIES ENTER THE MARKET!
At first i picked A as the most obvious one. Drop in the sales of ALL others, stable sales of Friendy, thus we could not explain the drop of the share. But after reading the Stimulus and the possible answers with no rush of the counter, i realized that the drop in share of the market could happen if Friendly has a stable venture, all existing companies have a decrease and some other companies enter the business. This could result in Friendlys loss of a part of the market. So IMO the answer must be the posted OA

Hi,

You know we always get biased when we look at the OA and try to find ways to come to OA..
If we agree that is a possiblity and A gets ruled out , HOW can D be the answer..
The same logic can be applied to D too...
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2016
Posts: 5

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

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 02:06
chetan2u wrote:
anprappas wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
lets see the Q and work out each sentence so that we can eliminate choices straight way..
1) Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent..
-- the sales were stable overall
-- FCS chain increased its sales by 100%, and it resulted in 7% of TOTAL

Inference-- If FCS has increased its sales with the total sales stable, Few would have seen decreased sales

2)Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.
After X was introduced, the total share of FCS dropped to 4% of TOTAL
--- However the FCS sales number remained same
Inference-- Sales of few others would have increased after X

Lets see the choices

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.
It is COULD be true..
If the share of FCS has reduced to 4%, without an effect on its sales, the TOTAL would have increased..
If TOTAL has increased, there has to be atleast ONE retailer who has to account for this increase..
so CANNOT be true in any case..

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.
Since we know the TOTAL remained SAME, but FCS doubled its sales, It is possible that the increase of FCS resulted in some loss to all others..
since it is could be true, YES possible

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.
Since after X was introduced, FCS share decreased to 1/2 of total, this COULD be true

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.
We know that some competitors increased their share. It could be anything as nothing is specified..
and we are ;looking for COULD be true.. so POSSIBLE

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.
There is nothing that says this could not have happened.. so POSSIBLE

WHAT IF NEW COMPANIES ENTER THE MARKET!
At first i picked A as the most obvious one. Drop in the sales of ALL others, stable sales of Friendy, thus we could not explain the drop of the share. But after reading the Stimulus and the possible answers with no rush of the counter, i realized that the drop in share of the market could happen if Friendly has a stable venture, all existing companies have a decrease and some other companies enter the business. This could result in Friendlys loss of a part of the market. So IMO the answer must be the posted OA

Hi,

You know we always get biased when we look at the OA and try to find ways to come to OA..
If we agree that is a possiblity and A gets ruled out , HOW can D be the answer..
The same logic can be applied to D too...

Hallo.
Lets take the scenario: All existing companies have a drop in sales, Friendly has stable sales, and other new companies enter the market. The Friendlys share of the market will eventually fall. So A could be possible in certain circumstances.
Now, the enactment of X resulted in a drop of the market share of Friendly. Other companies benefited from the enactment of X once the share of Friendy decreased. We can say that their "goal" was to decrease the market share of Friendly and not its venture. I cant explain the second scale of option D, which it seems to me completely out of scope. " other market forces"???? I think the only way to end up with D is by POE. It cannot be properly explained. Is there any official explanation about the OA?

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

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 04:09
anprappas wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
lets see the Q and work out each sentence so that we can eliminate choices straight way..
1) Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent..
-- the sales were stable overall
-- FCS chain increased its sales by 100%, and it resulted in 7% of TOTAL

Inference-- If FCS has increased its sales with the total sales stable, Few would have seen decreased sales

2)Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.
After X was introduced, the total share of FCS dropped to 4% of TOTAL
--- However the FCS sales number remained same
Inference-- Sales of few others would have increased after X

Lets see the choices

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.
It is COULD be true..
If the share of FCS has reduced to 4%, without an effect on its sales, the TOTAL would have increased..
If TOTAL has increased, there has to be atleast ONE retailer who has to account for this increase..
so CANNOT be true in any case..

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.
Since we know the TOTAL remained SAME, but FCS doubled its sales, It is possible that the increase of FCS resulted in some loss to all others..
since it is could be true, YES possible

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.
Since after X was introduced, FCS share decreased to 1/2 of total, this COULD be true

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.
We know that some competitors increased their share. It could be anything as nothing is specified..
and we are ;looking for COULD be true.. so POSSIBLE

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.
There is nothing that says this could not have happened.. so POSSIBLE

Hallo.
Lets take the scenario: All existing companies have a drop in sales, Friendly has stable sales, and other new companies enter the market. The Friendlys share of the market will eventually fall. So A could be possible in certain circumstances.
Now, the enactment of X resulted in a drop of the market share of Friendly. Other companies benefited from the enactment of X once the share of Friendy decreased. We can say that their "goal" was to decrease the market share of Friendly and not its venture. I cant explain the second scale of option D, which it seems to me completely out of scope. " other market forces"???? I think the only way to end up with D is by POE. It cannot be properly explained. Is there any official explanation about the OA?

Hi,
I fully understand your views on A.
But similarily I can say that there was no advantage due to enactment X, it was entry of these NEW competitors that led to decrease of share of the market space of all others.
Even if I do not consider that any new competitors entered the market, there is nothing which says that the decline was due to the enactment,..
since we are looking at the possiblity of OCCURENCE, it is very well possible that enactment of X just coincided with the time when due to some other market forces, the shares of Friendly fell..

BUT now let me point out to FLAW in your thinking of NEW entries..
what does A say - All other computer companies lost some market share.
Please read it carefully as it talks of ALL OTHER.. Now if any NEW companies came they would also be part of this ALL OTHER..
and if they are NEW entries and took some market share, it means these companies benefitted, BUT then A is still not possible as it talks of ALL other but these NEW companies have surely benefitted from 0 to whatever small number..
so A is not possible..

_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2016
Posts: 5

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

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 05:51
chetan2u wrote:
anprappas wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
lets see the Q and work out each sentence so that we can eliminate choices straight way..
1) Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail computer sales remained stable at 400,000 units per month, sales by the Friendly Computer Stores chain rose 200 percent, increasing the chain’s share of the total market to 7 percent..
-- the sales were stable overall
-- FCS chain increased its sales by 100%, and it resulted in 7% of TOTAL

Inference-- If FCS has increased its sales with the total sales stable, Few would have seen decreased sales

2)Then regulation X was imposed on all computer retailers by the federal government. In the ensuing months, Friendly’s total share of the market fell to 4 percent, even though its monthly sales volume remained at the same level it had reached just prior to the enactment of regulation X.
After X was introduced, the total share of FCS dropped to 4% of TOTAL
--- However the FCS sales number remained same
Inference-- Sales of few others would have increased after X

Lets see the choices

(1) All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume during the four-month period following the enactment of regulation X.
It is COULD be true..
If the share of FCS has reduced to 4%, without an effect on its sales, the TOTAL would have increased..
If TOTAL has increased, there has to be atleast ONE retailer who has to account for this increase..
so CANNOT be true in any case..

(2) All other computer companies lost some market share during the four-month period prior to the enactment of regulation X.
Since we know the TOTAL remained SAME, but FCS doubled its sales, It is possible that the increase of FCS resulted in some loss to all others..
since it is could be true, YES possible

(3) The enactment of regulation X provided the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have.
Since after X was introduced, FCS share decreased to 1/2 of total, this COULD be true

(4) The enactment of regulation X did not provide the Friendly chain’s competitors with an advantage they did not previously have; other dramatic changes in other market forces caused the decline in the Friendly chain’s market share.
We know that some competitors increased their share. It could be anything as nothing is specified..
and we are ;looking for COULD be true.. so POSSIBLE

(5) In the period following the enactment of regulation X, many new computer retailers that specialized in low-budget computers entered the marketplace.
There is nothing that says this could not have happened.. so POSSIBLE

Hallo.
Lets take the scenario: All existing companies have a drop in sales, Friendly has stable sales, and other new companies enter the market. The Friendlys share of the market will eventually fall. So A could be possible in certain circumstances.
Now, the enactment of X resulted in a drop of the market share of Friendly. Other companies benefited from the enactment of X once the share of Friendy decreased. We can say that their "goal" was to decrease the market share of Friendly and not its venture. I cant explain the second scale of option D, which it seems to me completely out of scope. " other market forces"???? I think the only way to end up with D is by POE. It cannot be properly explained. Is there any official explanation about the OA?

Hi,
I fully understand your views on A.
But similarily I can say that there was no advantage due to enactment X, it was entry of these NEW competitors that led to decrease of share of the market space of all others.
Even if I do not consider that any new competitors entered the market, there is nothing which says that the decline was due to the enactment,..
since we are looking at the possiblity of OCCURENCE, it is very well possible that enactment of X just coincided with the time when due to some other market forces, the shares of Friendly fell..

BUT now let me point out to FLAW in your thinking of NEW entries..
what does A say - All other computer companies lost some market share.
Please read it carefully as it talks of ALL OTHER.. Now if any NEW companies came they would also be part of this ALL OTHER..
and if they are NEW entries and took some market share, it means these companies benefitted, BUT then A is still not possible as it talks of ALL other but these NEW companies have surely benefitted from 0 to whatever small number..
so A is not possible..

All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume
A says nothing about share of other companies it concentrates only on volumes. A new entry cant have decrease in volume because it starts from 0. If it said share then i would agree with you. But volumes decreased not the share of the market.

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

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5213

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 06:05
anprappas wrote:
so A is not possible..[/b]

All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume
A says nothing about share of other companies it concentrates only on volumes. A new entry cant have decrease in volume because it starts from 0. If it said share then i would agree with you. But volumes decreased not the share of the market.[/quote]

let it be VOLUME only..
We know for sure that coy F lost its share although it maintained its volume..

40,000 -- share of F is 7% = 2800..
now this 2800 has become 4%, so total sales volume = 70,000 ..
who has produced this 70,000-40,000 = 30,000.. has to be some one would have increased its volume..

As per you new companies have come in ..But these NEW companies would have then increased their volume from 0 to some amount..
SO in no way there is a possiblity that all other had their sale volume dropping..
Remember NEW or OLD, they are all part of ALL OTHER computer retailers
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 117

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2016
Posts: 5

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

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 14:37
chetan2u wrote:
anprappas wrote:
so A is not possible..[/b]

All other computer retailers experienced a drop in their sales volume
A says nothing about share of other companies it concentrates only on volumes. A new entry cant have decrease in volume because it starts from 0. If it said share then i would agree with you. But volumes decreased not the share of the market.

let it be VOLUME only..
We know for sure that coy F lost its share although it maintained its volume..

40,000 -- share of F is 7% = 2800..
now this 2800 has become 4%, so total sales volume = 70,000 ..
who has produced this 70,000-40,000 = 30,000.. has to be some one would have increased its volume..

As per you new companies have come in ..But these NEW companies would have then increased their volume from 0 to some amount..
[b]SO in no way there is a possiblity that all other had their sale volume dro
Remember NEW or OLD, they are all part of ALL OTHER computer retailers[/quote]

we cannot say that a new company increased its volume since it hasnt existed before but i agree with your point that when it says all other companies it has to include new companies as well. To rule out A we have to make an assumption that all other companies are previously existed companies, and new companies entered the market are not icluded in all other companies. I am still trying to figure this out. Is there any official explanation for this OA? Or is it just a bad CR question?

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

Intern
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 23:45
AbhayPrasanna wrote:
11 month period. National sales is 400,000 units per month.
For the FCS chain, sales rose 200%, increasing its market share to 7%.

After regulation X:
FCS market share down to 4% BUT monthly sales volume remained the same as it was at the end of the 11 month period.

Which of the following CANNOT be true?

A. This cannot be true. Consider this: At the end of 11 month period, FCS had sales of 700, which was 7% of the entire market sales of 10,000. In ensuing months, FCS still sold 700, but this represents only 4% of the new market (=17,500), which must have obviously increased. If all other retailers experienced a DROP in the sales, how can the market increase, and thus the same amount of sales of FCS account for a lesser percentage of the market?!

I disagree with the OA, and am almost certain this is the answer.

B. This could be true, this is the 4 month period before regulation X, so there could have been fluctuations in that time, since we only know the net results of that 11 month period.

C. This could be true, and explains why the the other retailers experienced an increase in sales, and thus increasing the market relative to FCS's constant sales.

D. Other market force changes caused the market share decline - not some advantage that other people had over FCS. This is perfectly possible. What if regulation X caused some other changes in the market that explains FCS's constant sales but reduced market share? What if regulation X has nothing to do with what happened - perhaps some other event caused it.

E. This is perfectly possible and actually explains the increase in the market.

Pick A.

Please give Source and Original explanation if possible.

I can understand your point. However, your logic to deduct the answer A is not correct. There is no evidence or indication in the question that will suggest a decrease in sales of other companies. The reverse may be true- For instance, because of the new regulation the sales of the other companies might have increased!. Hence, A cannot be the answer.
One needs to look for an answer that the argument is inferring/supporting unambiguously. Option D acknowledges that the regulation did not provide the other companies an unprecedented advantage rather other factors such as tax period or safety concerns might have made the sales to remain constant. There is no ambiguity or paradox in this choice, thus the answer.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Re: Over an eleven-month period, during which national retail co   [#permalink] 03 May 2016, 23:45

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 68 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by