Super Express Shipping Company has implemented a new distribution

MartyTargetTestPrep
I am not sure if i get D. How do we know customers want to save money from the passage? Secondly, what's your point when you say "that customers want to save on expenses is not the same as the idea that the overnight service is "too expensive" for customers"- then what is? Third, why do we need to belive this: "The overnight service does not have to be 'too expensive' for customers in order for it to make sense to believe that customers will use the two-day service to save on expenses". Of course this has to be an assumption otherwise how can we say that they will later start using the premium service when the two day service is delayed

The passage calls the next-day delivery service "its premium next-day delivery service."

A premium service is a service for which the customer pays more, a "premium," for a higher quality service.

Also, the fact that the company would be concerned about sales of the next day service being replaced by sales of its two-day service indicates that the company charges more for the next-day service, meaning that the next day service is more expensive for customers than the two-day service.

We can see that the reason the company is concerned is that it makes sense that customers would choose the two-day service to save money.


The overnight service is MORE expensive. So, the customers can save money by using the two-day service even if the overnight service is not TOO expensive.

"More expensive" means that the customer have to pay more for one than for the other. "Too expensive" means that the customers either cannot afford the overnight service or find the expense so high that it doesn't make sense for them to pay for it. These are two different qualities.


The overnight service does not have to be TOO expensive, i.e., unaffordable, for customers to choose to use the two-day service instead. Rather, the overnight service has only to be MORE expensive in order for customers to choose to use the two-day service IF BOTH SERVICES ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME because of the new distribution system.

MartyTargetTestPrep ok so if this choice replaced 'too expensive' with 'more expensive' then it would be correct?

ThatDudeKnows so can we say that if the choice said that service is more expensive instead, we could say that changing smething in another option will encourage me to buy something that is more expensive and hence 'more expensive' in this choice would be correct if we replaced 'too expensive'?

No, for two reasons.

One is that, by calling the overnight service a "premium" service, the passage already implies that it's more expensive. So, by saying that the service is "more expensive," choice (D) would be basically repeating what the passage already indicates.

The more important reason is that the goal of the plan is to "encourage sales of its next-day service by intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages."

Notice that, regardless of whether the overnight service is more expensive, the plan of intentionally delaying delivery of two-day packages could encourage customers to use the overnight service.

So, the company's plan does not actually have to assume that the overnight service is more expensive than the two-day service.

Perhaps.

I would caution you against using the "what if the question/answer actually said..." approach very often, if at all. I guess it can be a useful analysis in some cases, but most people who use it do so WAYYYY too often. I believe it usually just allows the student to continue approaching the question how they wanted to approach it in the first place. But that approach led to an incorrect answer. Instead of changing a question or answer choice to make it fit how you were thinking, it's FAR more valuable to change the way you're thinking. Playing editor doesn't accomplish that and allows you to stay stuck in your ways.

Hello experts,
As far as I know,
Basically the goal for which the plan has been implemented is to save the sales of company's premium two-day service so that premium sales won't decrease.

Even if - deliberate delay of packages WILL affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers

It's premium service might remain unaffected and most of the significant reduction could result from its normal service. Hence, premium service is still safe and argument can still work.
Suppose there were 60 customers of premium service and 40 costumers of normal service, after the plan, there are 60 customer of premium service and 1 customer of normal service.
Premium sales will not be lowered.
On negating, argument hasn???t fallen apart!

How this choice is an assumption? What am I missing?

Quoting the argument: "The company plans to encourage sales of its next-day service by intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages..."

Their plan is to ENCOURAGE people to buy the next-day rather than the two-day by making the two-day less attractive. If all they do is lose two-day customers completely, their plan to encourage next-day hasn't exactly been successful!

You're missing that, if deliberate delay of packages WILL affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers, it very likely will affect sales of not only the two-day service but also the premium overnight service. After all, neither the passage nor the answer choice provides any reason to believe that deliberate delay of packages will not affect sales of the premium overnight service.

I am not sure if I am able to comprehend the passage well:
Both the "premium next-day delivery service" and "two-day service" are delivering their shipments in: one day = the following day of the shipment = the next-day of the shipment.

Can someone please dumb it down for me as I seem to be missing something? (please excuse for this silly ask)
I have read the explanations in this thread, but couldn't figure out as they are mostly answer choice oriented. Thanks

ThatDudeKnows MartyTargetTestPrep

Is option B wrong because if the customers actually had a preference, for what we know, they have an equal probability of having a preference of either the next day or the 2 day delivery service. So according to the preference of the customers the company's plan can succeed or fail. We cannot tell which way the plan will go since we have no idea about the exact preference of the customers and that makes option B incorrect. Is my understanding correct?

If we were to take B to be true, that customers don't have a preference between receiving in one day or in two days, then making the two-day actually arrive on the second day rather than the first wouldn't cause people to choose next-day instead. So this answer doesn't help us get to the conclusion, which makes it incorrect on a strengthen or assumption question.

Hi Experts,

Why is Option E incorrect.

Thanks

Here's (E).

(E) competing companies' delivery services rarely deliver packages to their destination earlier than their promised time

The passage says the goal of the plan is "to encourage sales of its next-day service."

Regardless of whether other companies sometimes deliver packages early, Super Express could encourage the use of its own next-day service by not delivering two-day packages on the next day. After all, regardless of whether other companies sometimes deliver packages early, Super Express customers are more likely to use its next-day service if its two-day service doesn't deliver on the next day.

Hi

Thanks for the quick reply.

But suppose instead of taking Super Express' next day delivery service, the customers shift to a competitor's two day delivery service and if we negate option E, the competitor will deliver packages before two days limit. Won't this break the conclusion down & thus make option E a necessary assumption?

Thanks

Notice that those competitors will deliver packages early sometimes regardless of whether Super Express does. So, those competitors for the next-day service already exist.

So, what does Super Express accomplish by not delivering packages early? It removes itself as a competitor for it's own next-day service.

Now, yes, it may be the case that Super Express will lose customers for its two-day service by not delivering packages early. However, the goal of the plan is to encourage use of its next-day service, and by removing itself as a competitor for its own next-day service, Super Express may succeed in achieving that goal even if other companies sometimes deliver packages early.

Here we need to find a choice that is necessary for the company to succeed in avoiding lower sales because of the reduction in usage of its next-day delivery service.


This definitely impacts the company’s plan if the delay will affect the companies revenue and low sales. An absolutely necessary condition if the company wants to succeed its plan, otherwise the company will lose REVENUE and SALES. Hang on to this one (A)


This is not a necessary assumption, in fact, if most people do not have a preference, the company might very well lose next-day deliv customers and therefore, sales, to two-day delivery by delivering packages the same day as next-day delivery.


This is a tricky choice but even if the company lost more money in lost sales without the plan, this is NOT a NECESSARY condition for the company to try to keep up its premium-day delivery. The company could lose more or less compared to the savings with the new efficient distribution system and STILL lose SOME money on premium-day delivery. Remember the goal here is to provide an assumption that is necessary for the company to avoid losing money on the premium service.



The overnight service doesn’t need to seem TOO expensive to customers for the company to go forward with its plan. Even if the overnight service seems similar in price or not significantly costlier, customers might choose to use two-day delivery because of the new change in reduced delivery time.



What competing companies do here is irrelevant.

(A) is the correct answer.