This question is quite interesting and difficult at the same time. The problem some of us have encountered in selecting option D is that we have used our common but outside knowledge. The knowledge is that a branded product has an advantage over a non-branded product. But the main question relevant to this passage is how? How does a branded product has an advantage over a non-branded product?

Think like a Company

Before answering this "how", please understand that we are thinking of this advantage in terms of the company because the last line clearly says that "brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.". This marketing advantage cannot be used for the consumers, it is for the company who owns the product.

So, how does a branded product has an advantage over a non-branded product? There could be only two factors: higher price or higher sales. In other words, the product could generate greater profits per unit or sell more units. In either way, the company would be at an advantage.

In our current case, it is given that the product doesn't sell at a higher price but still it given a marketing advantage. So, now the other way of giving advantage is through increased sales.

So, if an option statement suggests that people will buy branded products more than unbranded products, that would resolve the paradox - The paradox is that even though the branded products don't offer higher price, they are still a marketing advantage

Guaranteed Quality at the same price

Now, as we go through the options, we see that option A provides a very valid reason to suggest that branded products will sell more than unbranded products. Why? Because at the same price, you are getting a guarantee of quality if you buy a branded product.

Therefore, option A is the correct choice.

However, let's also look at option D.

This basically says that brand names are difficult to get established now. But it doesn't say that how these brand names are a marketing advantage even though they don't allow us to charge higher. Here, some of us have used our common knowledge that brand names are an advantage in all situations. But we can't use this common knowledge here.

Hope this helps

Feel free to ask in case of further queries.

-Chiranjeev
_________________

just thinking out loud here...the way i picked up the paradox is "...bigger MARKETING advantage than ever...". The paradox, in my opinion, is stressing on the MARKETING advantage of the brand names. Hence it has to do with the impact of brand names on consumers i.e. how brand names (or lack thereof) impact on consumers help market a product.

hence i'll go with option (B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time. which tells that brand name still holds some value in consumer's thinking even though there is no special quality associated with brand products.

I guess, the problem with option (D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established is that it talks about the difficulty of creating a brand in modern (today's) world but doesn't relate it to its MARKETING impact.

My 2 cents. Do let me know the correct choice though!

Hi Jack,

Let me see if I can explain.

The question simply is:
Branded Products are the same price and quality as non-branded.
BUT
Branded products are at a bigger marketing advantage than ever.
WHY?

To put D in easy to understand language, it is saying: It is now harder to get a brand name established.

This does not say anything about why branded products, whilst they are the same quality and price are still selected. It simply says that it's harder to create a brand - this is slightly different, it would suggest that branded products are more secure in their superior position (harder to get a rival brand set up), but does not say WHY they are in a superior position.

Does that help

Earlier - Branded Products , were priced at a premium due to perceived superiority to Non Branded Products.

Now - Techncical Expertise has narrowed the gap between branded and Non Branded Products , reducing the product differences.

Concl - Branded Products neither produce higher Quality nor are priced at a premium.

Paradox - Branded Products are bigger marketing tool....




If there is no difference in terms of Product quality , advantages and other aspects between Branded and Non Branded Products then how come Branded Products offer better Marketing Tool....





Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox outlined above?

(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival
products.

Seems good - We buy Branded goods with the expectation of Quality...

Consider Apple MAC book to Say XYZ Brand...

Even if Technology someday bridges the gap between Apple and XYZ , we would still prefer Apple Product with the gurantee of a good Brand name in terms of Quality and reputation won over time...

(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.

Not as good as (A)

(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.

Out of scope and wordy...

(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.

We are trying to resolve the Paradox , and this statement is no way helpful in doing so...

(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.

Out of scope...

Hence IMO (A) looks the best..
_________________

James, Bingo.. I also thought of this exact line of reasoning but I have 2 reservations in accepting this:
1) I believe that we can definitely bring fresh information in the paradox answer choices, just as we can bring additional information in Strengthen/Weakening answers. So having a new information which can go against one of the facts seems fine to me.
2) The bigger issue is that the information brought by B is from the perspective of non-branded products, so B doesn't refer to or go directly against branded products as in the stimulus. This means I am not directly going against of what I said in stimulus by saying B. Please note that conclusion of argument is: brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices.

Just another observation, A is a perception(from past) and B is also a perception(of future). I couldn't find any way to find A better.

Any suggestions, where I could have gone wrong in assessing this.. Thanks for responding

Thanks James, I think I understand your point, it makes sense and we all are here to learn. I will keep this rule/learning/observation in mind till I observe a deviation.

Paradox :brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. However, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Option E The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.
When Sales are declining company hires new marketing agency in order to revive sales decline . This doesn't help to resolve paradox .

OE:

Argument Evaluation

Situation In both quality and price, brand-name and nonbrand products have now become similar. Yet brand names offer a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Reasoning How can this paradox be explained? It is given that a brand-name product’s only distinction from its rival products is a recognizable name. What must be true to give brand-name products a bigger marketing advantage? Could consumers be relying on their outdated knowledge and believing that brand names continue to guarantee that a product’s quality is at least as good as, and possibly higher than, that of the rival products at the same price? If so, they would choose to purchase the brand-name product trusting they would, at a minimum, get comparable quality for the same price.


A Correct. This statement correctly identifies the consumer behavior that explains the marketing advantage of brand names.
B Consumers would be less likely to buy brand-name products if they were unsure of their quality, so this statement does not resolve the paradox.
C Corporations value brand names, but this statement does not say why, nor does it explain the marketing advantage of brand names.
D The relative ease or difficulty of establishing brand names does not explain why they are a marketing advantage.
E The shift from one advertising agency to another to counteract falling sales does not account for the general marketing advantage brand names enjoy.

The correct answer is A.

Hello, can someone further explain why B is not a better choice than A? While A gives the guarantee that the product is "as good as" (Of the same quality) this doesnt explain why the brands have a bigger advantage than "ever before". B, however, shows that while people know that the quality right now is the same, brands give them the assurance that it will stay as good or get better. Doesnt B make more sense?
Not satisfied with the explanations provided.

I was thrown off by the word "invariant" as I interpreted it to refer to the no-name-brand products when in fact it means "never changing".

Substituted into (B) Consumers realise that the quality of products sold under never changing brand names can drift over time.

This actually weakens the statement that "brand names are a bigger marketing..." whereas we want something that allows both brand / unbranded facts to co-exist.
_________________