Over the last three years, Saticoy Industries has seen nearly a 50% de

Responding to a pm:

SI has seen a decline in website revenue in last 3 yrs.
Plan: Redesign website - 'No need to scroll' and 'reduce number of words on each page by 60%'
Target: Increase % of website visits that result in purchase

Mind you, the target is that percentage of visits that result in purchase should increase. So if 20% visits result in purchase right now, it should go up to say 25%.
What says that the target will not be achieved?

A) The primary reason for Saticoy's sales decline is a dramatic decrease in the number of visitors to its website each month.

Irrelevant. How many people are actually visiting the website is irrelevant. We want to increase the conversion rate (the percentage of visits that result in purchase).

B) Respondents to a recent industry survey cited Saticoy's high prices, compared to its competitors, as the most common reason that they left the site without making a purchase.

This is a factor that was present, is present and is not being changed in our plan. Our plan is trying to address some other issues - reduce scrolling and word count.
Just because we are not addressing one factor, does not mean addressing other factors will not have any impact. Say 60% people leave the site because of high prices. But 10% leave because the site is too tiresome. The redesigning may encourage these 10% to purchase and hence we might see an increase in % of visits that result in purchase.
So this does not give us a reason why our plan may not work.

C) The decline in Saticoy's single-visit conversion rate has been more severe for mobile visitors than for desktop visitors.

Irrelevant. We don't know how redesigning impacts either.

D) Saticoy's primary differentiating feature in the marketplace is its detailed descriptions of products.

Correct. A USP of SI is its detailed descriptions of products - it is what differentiates SI from its competitors (a differentiator is why people prefer to buy a certain product over other similar products). If we reduce the word count by 60%, it may actually lead to decrease in conversion rate. The website redesigning may have negative impact and hence may not meet its target.

E) Two of Saticoy's closest competitors have recently seen their website redesigns result in significantly reduced page traffic

We have no idea how the competitors redesigned the website and what kind of changes they made. Irrelevant.

Answer (D)

Okay, let's take this baby down. Many of the responses in this forum focus on isolated pieces of this question, but I think it might be beneficial to do a full analysis, focusing on the critical-thinking strategies that unlock problems like these. As you study for the GMAT, it is very beneficial to identify patterns and strategies useful for multiple questions, not just one. Here is the full "GMAT Jujitsu" for this question:

Our first item of business is to recognize the problem type. The question stem asks for a reason why "Saticoy's plan will not reach its goals." While this sounds like a traditional "Weaken" question, it is a weaken question with a twist: instead of weakening a conclusion, we are weakening a plan. This changes our strategy a little bit.

There is a large logical gap here, related to the fallacy "Correlation is Not Causation." Even though Saticoy Industries wants to increase its "single-visit conversion rate," there is no evidence that redesigning its website by reducing the number of words on a page will affect this rate. (For example, what if nobody cares where the check-out link is? There is no way to tell given the limited facts in the question!) If we can find an answer that shows such a change won't affect the single-visit conversion rate, we have our answer. Let's analyze each answer choice.

Answer choice “A” doesn't focus on the correct logical gap. We are trying to find an answer that weakens the link between reducing webpage content and single-visit conversion rate. "Number of visitors" is not the same thing. “A” can be easily eliminated.

Answer choice “B” is a beautifully crafted trap. It baits you into focusing on the wrong thing, a logical fallacy I call in my classes a "Distracting Detour." It's kind of like "moving the goalposts." While “B” indicates that Saticoy's high prices affect whether a customer will make a purchase, our job in this problem is to focus on the apparent logical disconnect between reducing the number of words on a webpage and the single-visit conversion rate. Think about it: even if price DOES negatively affect whether a customer will purchase an item, is it possible that reducing website content would still INCREASE the single-visit conversion rate? In fact, if you think about it, with a "single visit" it is possible that visitors to Saticoy's website might not even be aware of price differences across the market. Hinting that an alternative plan might do a better job (such as reducing prices) still doesn't logically undermine the existing plan. You need to focus on the correct logical gap. (Incidentally, the "better-plan-doesn't-weaken-the-existing-plan" fallacy is a common trap in Plan/Strategy questions on the GMAT.)

Answer choice “C” contains interesting context, but doesn't undermine the logical gap. This one is also easy to eliminate.

Now, at first glance, answer choice “D” is a weak sauce answer. We technically don't know if the proposed 60% content reduction even affects the detailed description of Saticoy's products. However -- and this is crucial for those of you taking the GMAT -- "Strengthen" and "Weaken" questions on the GMAT aren't "Unequivocally Prove" or "Annihilate the Logic" questions. Answer choice “D” does indicate that the proposed plan could have problems, since (1) detailed product descriptions Saticoy's are differentiating feature and (2) the proposed change could potentially eliminate that feature. If all of the other answer choices fail to focus on the assumed causal link between reducing the number of words on a webpage and the single-visit conversion rate, then this answer -- as weak as it is -- still works. I naturally want something stronger. If this question showed up on my GMAT, I would reserve judgement on “D” until I looked at the other answer choices.

Answer choice “E” is also completely irrelevant to the logical gap. Reduced "page traffic" is not the same thing as "single-visit conversion rate." Additionally, it never tells us HOW Saticoy's competitors redesigned their websites. The redesigns could have been simply changes in color schemes! “E” doesn't focus on the right thing. We can quickly eliminate it.

In the end, only one answer choice even gets us close to undermining the assumed causal link between reducing the number of words on a webpage and the single-visit conversion rate. Four of the five answer choices focus on something other than the logical gap. They can be eliminated. Only one answer is left over. And it is total weak sauce. This is what I call in my classes a "Directional Nudge." With Strengthen and Weaken questions, test takers often look for an answer so perfect that Aristotle himself rises from the grave and gives them a round of applause. But that approach is a deliberate trap in many GMAT questions. Don't fall for it. You just need the answer choice that correctly "Minds the Gap" in the best possible way. And "D" is the only one that does the job.

It is either B) or D)

Not B) because the scenario listed in B) can still lead to an increase in conversion rate.Please note that the words "the most common reason" is NOT THE SAME AS "the only reason".

D) is correct though there could have been a better answer.For D) to be correct we have to assume that reducing 60% of the words leads to a reduction in description.Now how far is that a straightforward assumption I do not know. Some moderator please chip in.....

VeritasKarishma

I have a doubt about this.

According to the explanation on Veritas-

Choice D is correct, as it gives a reason that the plan might not work: if Saticoy reduces the amount of text on each page, it may be losing one of its main selling points, which is its detailed product descriptions - a big driver of Saticoy sales is the very text that it is looking to remove.


But my doubt is, according to the argument they are reducing the number of words on each page by over 60%, But it never say that they are reducing product description, they might be reducing something else, thus it wouldn't necessarly weaken the argument.

In B- (According to veritas)-

Choice B fits that mold: while a better plan might be to reduce prices, that doesn't mean that this plan can't also help to increase (even if modestly so) conversion rate.

Although you can get better hits on the website but that won't confirm whether your conversation rate would be better or not, because if primary reason for decreasing revenue is because of high prices and it also mentions that "as the most common reason that they left the site without making a purchase", thus even if we enhance the website there should be no increase in the conversation rate.

Can you please help me to understand, why exactly B is wrong and D is right? And where my understanding is lacking, as according to above, D is not necessarly weaking it and B provides us a solid point to weaken the plan

Thanks, would be waiting for your reply.

Thanks & Regards
Siddharth

Higher prices are the most common reason, not the only reason.

If today the conversion rate is only 20%, it doesn't mean that 80% people do not buy because of pricing. Perhaps 60% people do not buy because of pricing, 10% do not buy because of specifications and 10% do not buy because the website is too tiresome.
The plan is to make the website more attractive by reducing word count by 60% etc. We need to say why this plan may not work. There could be various reasons:
1. There are no people who do not buy because of the tiresome website.
2. Even if some people find the new website better, the current website is what attracts some people and reducing word count may actually eat into the 20% number.

Point 2 is what option (D) says. Option (D) implies that the details given make its products attractive. If you reduce word count by 60%, this will get impacted. The description is where many words are used.
You don't have to look for a loophole in which case the plan may work. You have to look for a reason due to which the plan may not work.

Note that this is the only option that deals with the plan given.

VeritasKarishma

I still don't get why D is correct.

I get this point that we have to weaken the argument that reducing word count and redesigning a website can help to increase the customer base.
And I also get it, that B doesn't directly talk about the website redesign and decrease in the word count. Also in B, it is dependent on the survey, for which we don't have any details.

But still, in the argument, it is never specified which content would be reduced, it only says that word count would be reduced.

And D says only about words that contain product description.

So how can we link, whether the word count that is going to be reduced will contain product description. There are chances that it might not contain the product description. And they are only reducing other words count, for example, information about company, extra blogs/articles, customer care page, etc.

The number of words are to be reduced on EACH page by over 60%. The predominant part of the website would be pages giving their products and product descriptions. From where will you reduce 60% of the words on those pages? It will be from the product description. That is the part that will have words.
The intent of option (D) is very clear. The argument specifies that words will be reduced from every page. It also specifies that 60% of the words will be reduced (so more than half).
But detailed descriptions is what sells. Hence, the plan becomes questionable.

It is difficult to assume that differentiating feature is a coveted and demanding feature for customers, and hence as per the option D, the absence of the differentiating feature (detailed description) will dent the goal.

I wouldn't worry too much about this question appearing on the actual thing.

For one, option D doesn't specify the reduction in words will cause a reduction in the product description. It could be terms and conditions of purchase, return policy, description of the manufacturer, reviews from customers - we're assuming that the reduction will be only in product description.

Option B states the "most important reason" - sure there could be other reasons but how can we assume that UI/UX of the site is one of the reasons? We will have to assume UI UX is still pretty relevant for option B to be correct. That's bringing outside information in my opinion.

For me this is a poor quality question.

Hello,

This is an old question, but wanted to see if anyone that chose D could help me out with this one.

Can we assume differentiating feature here has a positive connotation, and if so, what indicates that? I read this as just saying the long descriptions make the site different from others, not better or worse.

On the surface, this would seem better for the customer, and I guess we could assume that, making D the right answer. But if the long descriptions were annoying to most customers, or even were part of the reason for the low conversion rate, couldn't we make the argument that this is a reason the plan would succeed, not fail?

I had B just because it seemed like their plan wouldn't address this pricing issue, but this answer had issues too, so I wouldn't argue for it (if "most common answer" was changed to something stronger, like "almost all customers", this might have been a better answer)

Thanks

"Saticoy's primary differentiating feature in the marketplace" implies its USP, what sets it apart from the others. It is what makes it stand out and what. makes people take notice. The "primary differentiating" feature of a product is the feature which makes the product better than others. You would be expected to understand that we are talking about something that is considered a positive aspect of the product.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.