Official Explanation:Emca, a manufacturer of garden tools, had its most successful 3-month period after introducing a new line of shovels, rakes, and other related equipment. During this time, the company also expanded the number of stores that sold their products from 50 to 62, though some industry experts claim that neither the new line of equipment nor the expansion of stores carrying Emca’s products is completely responsible for the recent success.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the experts’ claim? (A) Emca’s two biggest rivals had their best 3-month period at the same time.(B) The new stores carrying Emca products only carry the new equipment.(C) Emca’s leadership has been virtually unchanged since the company’s inception.(D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns.(E) The new shovels and rakes have a higher profit margin than do the older shovels and rakes.Question Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: Emca had a successful 3 months after introducing a new line of products and expanding to 12 new stores. However, experts say these two reasons aren’t the only reasons why they were successful.
Goal: Find the option that best explains how Emca was successful beyond the two reasons already given. Analysis:This question asks you to support the claim that the experts have made about the origins of Emca’s success.
Conclusion: Neither the new line of equipment nor the expansion of stores carrying Emca’s products is completely responsible for the recent success.
Premise: There is no evidence given for this conclusion. We must provide it.
It might be assumed that the two changes – new equipment line and new stores – are responsible for the 3-month success. The question asks for support that something else was responsible. Choice A does not give another reason, but if Emca’s rivals also had a good period, then we have reason to suspect that something else was responsible for Emca’s success, something that affected the industry generally. What that is, we don’t know, but it’s not necessary that we do.
(A) Emca’s two biggest rivals had their best 3-month period at the same time.
This is the correct choice. As stated above, whatever the reason for the strong 3-month period, it seemed to have affected other similar businesses. Therefore, the reason for the successful period was not likely to be the new products and stores opened by one of them.(B) The new stores carrying Emca products only carry the new equipment.
By itself, this information does not tell us that the new equipment and new stores were not responsible. Perhaps the stores did well selling the new stuff, which would weaken the conclusion. Not enough information is given.(C) Emca’s leadership has been virtually unchanged since the company’s inception.
If anything, this suggests that we can eliminate a possible alternate cause for the success – a change in management. Eliminating an alternate cause would weaken, not strengthen, the conclusion. (D) There have been problems with the new equipment line leading to an unusually large number of returns.
Though this does suggest that the new equipment has not been responsible for the success, it does not address the issue of the new stores. The conclusion is that the successful 3-month period was neither the new equipment OR the new stores.(E) The new shovels and rakes have a higher profit margin than do the older shovels and rakes.
This seems to suggest that the new equipment WAS responsible for the success, and this would weaken the expert’s conclusion.Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.
_________________
EMPOWERgmat
Total GMAT Content & Tactical Training | 120 Point Guarantee | All 6 Official GMAT Tests
empowergmat.com