|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
15 Oct 2015, 12:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper:
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the
pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line
of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so
many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article states that a rich company lost its stature and wealth because children became with the company's line of products, mainly video games. Another company which also manufactures video games will also collapse since almost every house hold in America has their gaming product and children will eventually get bored. The conclusion that the latter company will also collapse based on what a different company faced is improper and not parallel. There are several key factors which are not taken into consideration and hence the argument is weak and it has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that Company B collapsed solely because children got bored of their products. Both Company A and Company B may have different business model and it is difficult to decide fate of a $12 billion company just by comparing it with another company. Company B may have made certain investment decisions which led to their collapse.
Second, argument assumes that the children will also get bored of Company A's product. This statement is a stretch. We do not know whether Company A is following the same business model as Company B. Company A may be good in marketing their product and they may be releasing new video games and better versions of the existing games in the market. This would definitely create demand and keep Company A in competition. The argument does not mention this key point that whether children like the product of Company A better than Company B. Company A product may have exciting offers and state of the art graphics in their product which attract children. This has a clear selling point. Naturally, Company A will remain more prosperous.
Generating demand for product is the key point of any company. Microsoft rolls out versions of their Operating system every year. Each of those version have exciting new features and user interfaces. After a certain amount of time previous versions are discontinued and the users have to buy the newer version which are available in the market. For example Windows 2000, Windows 2003, Windows XP are now outdated and people now prefer newer versions of Microsoft like Windows 2007 and Windows 2010. Thus Microsoft is successful in generating and maintaining demand. company A may have followed a similar business model and the argument again misses this crucial point.
In conclusion, argument stated in the newspaper article lacks logical reasoning. The logic behind the conclusion can be questioned and the conclusion will lose face in case of a debate. If above mentioned factors are mentioned and explained, then proper conclusion can be drawn.
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the
pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line
of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so
many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article states that a rich company lost its stature and wealth because children became with the company's line of products, mainly video games. Another company which also manufactures video games will also collapse since almost every house hold in America has their gaming product and children will eventually get bored. The conclusion that the latter company will also collapse based on what a different company faced is improper and not parallel. There are several key factors which are not taken into consideration and hence the argument is weak and it has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that Company B collapsed solely because children got bored of their products. Both Company A and Company B may have different business model and it is difficult to decide fate of a $12 billion company just by comparing it with another company. Company B may have made certain investment decisions which led to their collapse.
Second, argument assumes that the children will also get bored of Company A's product. This statement is a stretch. We do not know whether Company A is following the same business model as Company B. Company A may be good in marketing their product and they may be releasing new video games and better versions of the existing games in the market. This would definitely create demand and keep Company A in competition. The argument does not mention this key point that whether children like the product of Company A better than Company B. Company A product may have exciting offers and state of the art graphics in their product which attract children. This has a clear selling point. Naturally, Company A will remain more prosperous.
Generating demand for product is the key point of any company. Microsoft rolls out versions of their Operating system every year. Each of those version have exciting new features and user interfaces. After a certain amount of time previous versions are discontinued and the users have to buy the newer version which are available in the market. For example Windows 2000, Windows 2003, Windows XP are now outdated and people now prefer newer versions of Microsoft like Windows 2007 and Windows 2010. Thus Microsoft is successful in generating and maintaining demand. company A may have followed a similar business model and the argument again misses this crucial point.
In conclusion, argument stated in the newspaper article lacks logical reasoning. The logic behind the conclusion can be questioned and the conclusion will lose face in case of a debate. If above mentioned factors are mentioned and explained, then proper conclusion can be drawn.
Moderators:
188 posts
