The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which

Can we attack the assumption of argument?

Small stores have been able to keep prices high.

Now, they can't because of Staples Advertising.

KSU Vic

Pay attention to the conclusion we have to attack.

This analysis is FLAWED, however, since even today the superstores
control a very small share of the retail market.

Since we need to prove it weak, we have to show that this analysis is NOT FLAWED, but correct instead.

The recent upheaval in retail business IS REALLY CAUSED BY the advent of office equipment “superstores”.

(B) seems to do the best job.

The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.

My Answer was 'D' (later i realized that it is wrong) Correct Answer is 'B'
According to 'B' Heavy advertising by superstores has made the furniture prices to go down. if this is true then superstore's market share must be substantial which is contradicting Premise 3 since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. because according to Premise 1 The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business small firms have already gone out of buisness.
In CR - as per my knowledge - we are not allowed to refute the premise while weakening the argument.
Pls Explain!

B says that superstore have huge ad for the publicity. So have lower price, so is not the control of retailer the reason but the aggressive strategy

Please follow the forum's rules, third point

rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html

Thanks.

Conclusion:- The analysis is flawed.

What is the analysis:- Superstore's low price strategy is the reason for closure of small stores.

Weaken the conclusion means we have to show that SS is responsible for closure of small stores.

possible reasons:-
1) There is no customer loyalty under this category. Whoever offers cheap items gets the most customers.
2) Small stores are unable to offer the same or lower price.
3) Although market share of SS is low, but split of remaining market share is even lower among other competitors and likely to decrease in future.
4) There is none other than price that is causing this effect to happen in retail- market.

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market. They DO NOT participate in the market we are concerned about.

(B) The superstoresт heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies. Possible reason.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business. We want to show why small stores are not in business any more.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods. We are not concerned about other types of goods.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock. are those equipment only with Superstores? Not sure.

GMATNinja, Could you help to explain why (A) is wrong?

Curly05 Notice we aren't asked to weaken the claim that the analysis is flawed, we are asked to weaken the specific claim given for why this is so (since the superstores control a small share, they can't be the reason that small firms go out of business). (A) doesn't relate to this claim at all, and thus it is irrelevant.

GMATNinja, GMATninja2, Does not option A break the assumption of the author i.e. with small retail market share a company cannot cause upheaval in the office-equipment retail business.

For option B my thought is- Despite prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies can small firms not survive in the market? yes they can

I would appreciate your assistance to clear my doubt how option B is a better choice.

Choice (A) is not talking about the retail market at all. Instead, it talks about non-retail sales to manufacturers. Thus, (A) is not relevant to this argument.

Yes, (B) does not PROVE that the author's argument is wrong. It is certainly possible that small retail firms could survive despite lower prices. But we are simply looking for the answer that, if true, would most weaken the argument.

If (B) is true, then the small firms MUST have lowered their prices. Unless they can suddenly cut costs, this means that their revenues and profits have decreased. This could certainly explain why many small firms have gone out of business.

Again, we don't need to prove that the lowered prices caused many small firms to go out of business. But (B) definitely weakens the author's argument by providing evidence supporting that possibility.

I hope that helps!

Wow surprisingly all this becomes easy when you understand the GAP and know what you are looking for .

small businesses are closing becoz super stores keep prices low (becoz they have high sales volume ). and we need to weaken the conclusion that superstores are not the reason for failures/closures of small businesses .
We need to show that small businesses closed because of these superstores .

So correct answer will fill this GAP. and clearly B is correct
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
B makes sense as we were talking about price and small business don't have high sales so they can never compete this price .
NOTE- always follow the logic and info used in STEM to weaken the argument . Weaken contains outside info but right outside info would contain similar link /connection /structure /logic .

OPTION (A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market. fails to show how SUPERSTORES have made small businesses suffer . Option A is just extra info it doesn't help us understand this GAP we are looking for.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.- Owning MOST of the OE doesn't help us understand how big stores made small business run out of business . May be some of the equipment which big stores don't have could have been available with small stores / business . So this doesn't weaken and isn't best ans .

main FOUR words of the argument : "keeps their prices low"
It is the reason for grasping all the customers in order to control the retail market .
superstores are doing so but small firms are unable to that.
someone has purported "keeps their prices low" is the reason for kicking small firms out of the market . but does "keeps their prices low" come ? according to that person it is just because superstores have large percent of share in the market.
author says logic is flawed because superstores have small percentage of share in market .

we have to weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed . so percentage of share ( contradicting factor between someone and the author ) is not the reason. we have to find another reason from answer choice which will be the deciding factor for superstores by keeping prices low to rule the market and keep small firms out of it.

option (1) : Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.

The retail supply chain consists of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and the consumer (end user). so, here consumers are directly linked with manufacturers ; option doesn't consider retail market. so. this is out of scope.

option (2) : The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
here comes the another reason what we were just looking for. heavy advertising is the cause to keep the prices low and to capture the whole market . so. the flaw is weakened by this choice.

option (3) : Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
The goal is to show that something that the superstores did had an impact (in this case negative) on the small business sales.
just opposite to our intended search .

option (4) : Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
the ownership of the superstores isn't relevant to the argument. the scope of the passage is limited to the retail market for office supplies. so, "large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods " is totally out of scope .

option (5) : The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock. so what? retails are not stocking new equipments? definitely prices will be changed for the new products but will affect the market in the same way as the old products did.

correct answer B

The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment superstores whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

We need to find a choice that explains why even though superstores control a very small share of the retail market, they were attributed to the upheaval in the office-equipment retail business.



This choice doesn't explain why superstores contributed to the upheaval in the office equipment retail business. So larger customers purchase wholesale via manufacturers -- completely irrelevant to the argument.



So superstores forced prices down as a result of their advertising. So even though they're only a small share of the retail market, their actions impacted many small businesses. This is exactly what we're looking for.

Answer is B.

The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment superstores whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.

Understanding the argument - The author concludes that the analysis (the recent upheaval has been attributed to superstores whose high sales volumes keep their prices low) is flawed. Why? Becasue, the author cites the fact that superstores control the very small share of the retail market. Our job is to weaken the conclusion here. How can we do that? What if even though the superstores control a very small share there is something about the superstores that impacts the retail stores.

Option Elimination -

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market. This isn't talking about the scope of the argument, which is to weaken the conclusion. The argument is mainly concerned with retail businesses and superstores. It is out of scope.

(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies. - This fits what we are looking for. If the superstore even though control a very small share impacts the overall pricing and forces the retail stores to push down their prices which is detrimental to their business because as we know from argument the retail stores may not have the high sales volumes to support the low sales prices. This may impact the retail stores' profit margins and push many of them to go out to business.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business. - Doen't matter. We are mainly concerned about Retail stores going out to business. Distortion.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods. - "Large retailing chains" and "other types of goods" are out of scope.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock. - Does it impact our scope which is to weaken the conclusion that the analytics is flawed? No. And if at all this shifts our focus to "growing importance of computers. At best this is out of scope.