TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from

C for me as well.

If a lot of products have damage before shipping, manager's proposal will cost more.

Should be D. It is necessary to evaluate how many products were actually damaged. Whether customers making false claims? If yes then no need of damage proof packaging

A. Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring
damage during shipping than are typical electronic products [Hold]
B. Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most
other products shipped by mail-order companies [other products are not discussed as part of the argument. Moreover, if the products are not damaged at the rate that Manager mentions, then this choice has less relevance]
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage
already present when those items were packed for shipping [This may have effect on the Manager’s decision, but not once the decision has been implemented]
D. Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product
damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later [Irrelevant]
E. Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping
companies it uses to ship products to its customers [Monitoring has no effect on the argument]

Answer: A

The manager is arguing that the cost of packing materials will go UP, but the cost of replacing products will go DOWN (offsetting each other). If the items are broken before they leave the warehouse, there isn't a packing material on the planet that's going to un-break them

The answer is C.

The ans should be C definitely. The manager's proposal is effective only when the items are damaged during the shipping. but if the items are already broken, the we are only increasing the cost price by packing the damaged items with an expensive material. The items have to returned in any case.

the assumption of the argument is: "good items are packed for shipping, and they get damaged after shipping, that is during transit".
A) A does not validate assumption - items may be vulnerable but what if shipping agency takes extra care while handling it.
B) does not substantiate assumption, answers only 50% of truth - more electronic products may get damaged in transit, but we want to know whether they are damaged before packing them for shipping, and what is the propotion of the goods that is damaged in transit and the goods that is already damaged before packaging it?
C) substantiates assumption in correctly in proper form
D/E) irrelevant

I am also for C.

That manager wanted to reduce costs by investing on advanced packing technology. So, here the assumption is - items were in good condition during package but got damaged during transit. if items were already in damaged condition at the time of packing, no matter how much care the company takes for transport, customers are going to return them which ultimately increases the cost.

TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to customers worldwide. The company’s shipping manager is proposing that customer orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate damage during shipping. The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.

Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether implementing the shipping manager’s proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?

A. Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring
damage during shipping than are typical electronic products.
B. Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are
most other products shipped by mail-order companies.
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage
already present when those items were packed for shipping.
D. Whether there are cases where customers blame themselves for product
damage that, though present on arrival, isn’t discovered until later.
E. Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping
companies it uses to ship products to its customers

Can someone explain this one?

If the items while packing were damaged, and then those items were shipped, still TrueSave has to pay for the damaged item it was going to send to the customers. So it is important to determine that the products/items before packing were damaged or not, if they would have been damaged ones then there is no need to introduce the new packaging material, as the new packaging material would not help in rectifying the damage already caused before packing of the product.
According to me this was the what i got. If someone could tell me if it is correct interpretation of the question.

You are correct.
Argument : Cost of extra packaging material = cost of replacing damaged product due to transit.
If the products are damaged before transit, introducing new packaging material is more costly than the old way of packaging. => C
Hope it helps.

New Gmat club project
Click here

Here is the (A) vs (C) comparison.

Manager's Proposal: Use newer, more expensive packing that eliminates damage during transport.

Argued-for effect - Overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.

Extra cost of new packing = Cost of replacing products because they arrived damaged

What is most important to ascertain (evaluate) to know if argued-for effect will happen?

(A) Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
It doesn't matter whether TrueSave's products are more vulnerable, less vulnerable or have same vulnerability compared with typical electronic products.
What we know is extra cost of packing is same as cost of replacing products arriving damaged on arrival. Whether the cost of products arriving damaged at arrival is less/more or same as this cost for typical electronic products, we don't care. All we want to establish is that our cost will essentially stay the same. How it compares with the cost that others incur is irrelevant.


(B) Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most other products shipped by mail-order companies
The comparison is not between such costs incurred for electronic products vs other products. The only aim is that TrueSave's cost should not increase.

(C) Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping
We know Extra cost of new packing = Cost of replacing products because they arrived damaged
But here is the twist - what if the products that arrive damaged are damaged before they are shipped? They would be damaged upon arrival and the new packing will not save them. They will be returned and that cost will be incurred.

Answer: "Yes, a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping"
Then cost of replacing products will stay high. So the reduction in this cost will not cancel off the extra cost of packing. Hence the argued-for effect will not be seen.

Answer" "No, a sizable proportion of returned items are returned NOT because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping"
So most products that get returned are due to damage while shipping. The new packing will make it non existent. Hence the extra cost of packing would equal cost of replacing products and the argued-for effect will be seen.

Answer (C)

Evaluate Q

(A) Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring damage during shipping than are typical electronic products - Wrong: Irrelevant Comparison

(B) Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most other products shipped by mail-order companies - Wrong: Irrelevant Comparison

(C) Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping - Correct: If yes, weaken. If no, strengthens.

(D) Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later - Wrong: Irrelevant

(E) Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping companies it uses to ship products to its customer - Wrong: Irrelevant

GMATNinja AjiteshArun AndrewN hi experts, I understand why C is correct, but I thought D can be a contending answer as well, so I want to ask if my reasoning is sound for this GMATPREP question.

1. For D, I think it is reasonable to assume that customer's self-blame = unlikeliness to return the products. If there is no case of customers who blame themselves, then the cost of new package = cost of replacing products returned. On the other hand, if there are cases in which customers blame themselves, it is costlier in these cases (and therefore overall costs) to use the new package material, since they are unlikely to return the products. What is wrong with that reasoning?

2. If the wording of D changes to "Whether there are "a substantial number of" cases in which customers blame themselves for product damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later", would that make D a contender since a Yes answer would mean a significant difference in cost, and a No answer would mean cost can be roughly the same?

Thank you for helping out!

Hello, nhatanh811. I think your second question speaks to why the answer fails: whether there are cases is as vague and unqualified as a some. If the answer were yes, but there were only two such cases out of, say, ten thousand, then such information would not seem to be most important to ascertain regarding the proposal. At the same time, even though a substantial number of cases would make (D) more alluring, such an answer would still fail to (C). Notice that the argument is based on the cost of replacing products returned by customers, so whether customers blame themselves or blame TrueSave for damaged products, that concern falls outside the scope of the argument until those customers return the damaged products. Choice (C) focuses on returned items; choice (D) does not. It really comes down to this simple consideration.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew

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.