Research has shown that shoppers who purchase garments in a "luxury"

Question

Research has shown that shoppers who purchase garments in a "luxury" material, such as cashmere or angora, are likely to purchase garments in more than one other luxury materials, as well. A recent livestock disease has significantly reduced the amount of cashmere available on the market. This, in turn, has driven up the prices of the cashmere products still available for purchase. We can therefore conclude that more people will be buying angora items of clothing this year than they did in previous years.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that more people will be buying angora clothing this year?

A) Any disease that affects a bovid such as the cashmere goat is unlikely to cross the biological order line and affect lagomorphs such as the angora rabbit.
B) Most consumers cannot tell the difference between cashmere and angora, which are both expensive and similar in texture.
C) When the price of one luxury item sharply rises, many other luxury items see a slight increase in price.
D) In a recent study, shoppers who had recently purchased a garment in a luxury material cited similar reasons for buying angora as buying cashmere.
E) The sales of luxury items are far less sensitive to price fluctuations than are most inexpensive staple items.

chetan2u · Answer

I think OA should be D and not C..
C just tells us that there is a increase in sale of luxury items, does not talk specifically about garments, so C is out for talking in general.
B is close but D is stronger

D says people buy both type of garments for same reason. So if one type has become expensive, people will chose the alternative..so CORRECT

D

aragonn · Answer

Official Explanation 
Answer = (D). The conclusion that we’re working with is that angora sales will go up. The evidence for this is that cashmere will become more expensive. To strengthen this argument, we need to strengthen the assumption that links these two ideas. We need to find a point that connects cashmere to angora; (D) does this by showing that the customers purchase these two materials for similar reasons, making it more likely that those who now want cashmere but find it too expensive will be likely to purchase angora.

If the farms that produced angora also fell victim to the cashmere disease (A), people would be less likely to purchase angora, not more. If supply drops, then by the Law of Supply and Demand, price would rise, and fewer people would buy it. This is a weakener for the argument given, not a strengthener.

Choice (B) is a flawed strengthener. It doesn’t matter that most customers cannot distinguish between angora and cashmere. In the first place, we’re looking at a select group of customers here—only those who buy luxury goods, who are most certainly not identical to "most customers." In the second place, this wouldn’t necessarily make it more likely that they would buy angora—it's possible that if the buyers can't tell the difference between cashmere and angora, they also can't tell the difference between these genuine materials and synthetic imitations, which presumably would be much cheaper; thus, the cheap knock-off imitations would rise in sales more than genuine angora.

People buying more luxury goods might buy more angora (C), but this argument links low cashmere production, not a general increase in luxury purchases, to a projected increase in the sale of angora. This is actually a weakener for the argument.

The idea that angora sales have been steadily rising (E) also undermines the argument that low cashmere production will drive angora sales, as, in this scenario, angora sales would have been rising anyway

ryanstarr · Answer

You're completely correct--I think the post you were referencing accidentally took the counterposition to (A). As (A) stands, it  is  a good thing for sales of angora if the angora rabbit isn't threatened by the new disease. However, rather than acting as a real strengthener to the argument, (A) is actually an assumption. This difference is subtle, as assumptions do fundamentally support an argument, but essentially you can think of (A) as a prerequisite the conclusion's success (this  must  be true, or the conclusion will be in serious trouble) but not really as an active contributor to its success (because knowing that there  are  angora rabbits doesn't actually offer any evidence to support the contention that people will substitute angora for cashmere).

Now, why is B incorrect?

Option (B) falls victim to the same error as option (A). This new information is pretty important to the argument, as if the opposite is true--that people  can  tell the difference between cashmere and angora--then it casts doubt on the conclusion, which relies (again) on the idea that people will willingly substitute angora products for cashmere products. However, while knowing from (B) that the two materials are hard for most people to distinguish from one another makes this conclusion  believable , it doesn't really help the conclusion as much as (D). For one thing, most people don't buy cashmere or angora, meaning that even if most people can't tell the difference, the minority of people who actually buy items made of these materials might still be able to distinguish between them. Also, even if we assume they can't practically tell the difference between cashmere and angora, that's not great evidence that they'll buy angora instead--it just opens up the possibility. So while it does somewhat help the conclusion, it's easy to conceive of an answer that does a better job.

Option (D) does that better job in two ways: it discusses buyers of luxury fabrics specifically, and it tells us that for those buyers, cashmere and angora occupy a similar niche. This makes it very believable that an increase in cashmere prices will push would-be cashmere buyers into buying angora and so positively supports the conclusion.

Ganeshmantri · Answer

Hi  carcass   chetan2u   mikemcgarry

Reason to eliminate B given in Magoosh's OA: People can confuse cashmere (C) with fake cashmere and buy ithe fake one more.. what? How can we even imply that? All we have been told that people cant tell the difference between 'cashmere (C) and angora (A)'. Also passage says that 'disease has significantly reduced the amount of C available on the market'

Doesn't customers 'not able to differentiate C and A 
AND 
C being less on the market' 
DIRECTLY imply that people would purchase A more?

I am not saying that D is incorrect. I agree that if people have same reasons to buy both C and A, they might purchase A more in absence of C. 
But B says 'most' and D doesn't tell anything about the fraction of users citing similar reasons to purchase. 
B is stronger.

Kindly shed some light. Thanks

LST786 · Answer

Thinking about A, that does not make sense. If it were true that it was unlikely - what implications would that have for the conclusion? None really. We need something that relates to the conclusion.

Moving on to B, which is quite tricky! It touches upon both cashemere and angora, and say that they are similar. Thoug, if this were tru, what would that mean? Nothing really. It does not indicate anything about the willingness to purchase.

C does nothing but weakens the argument if true.

D is what we are looking for.  Lets say that the reasons are the structure mentioned before. If this was true - than it is more likely that they will buy angora.

E is irrelevant

CuriosStud · Answer

This is a very loose ended question for supporting a claim. Although D is the correct answer, which I got correct through the process of elimination. All the options need some amount of assumption, with D being the least in that bracket.

NoeticImbecile · Answer

hello experts, everyone is the thread is talking about alternatives. I somehow fail to understand how is it so as its written "are likely to purchase garments in more than one other luxury materials", so shoppers are buying 1+ products. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that if C becomes costly then they will start buying A, as they have to buy more than 1 product. As these are luxury items, price shouldn't be a determinant. Please guide

pk14y · Answer

I'm confused as to how A is not an answer. The conclusion states that buying angora items will increase. So if A is not true, i.e. the disease takes place, wouldn't that destroy the conclusion because people would not be buying angora items?

BinodBhai · Answer

The correct answer is D) In a recent study, shoppers who had recently purchased a garment in a luxury material cited similar reasons for buying angora as buying cashmere. This option best supports the claim that more people will be buying angora clothing.

Explanation

The Argument's Core: The argument states that a reduction in cashmere supply has driven up its price. The conclusion is that more people will buy angora. This relies on the unstated premise that angora is a suitable substitute for cashmere, and that the rising price of cashmere will directly lead consumers to switch to angora.

Why D is the Best Support: Option D strengthens this link by showing a direct consumer preference connection. If consumers have similar reasons for buying both angora and cashmere, it suggests they see the two materials as interchangeable for meeting their needs or desires for luxury. Therefore, a sharp price increase in one would logically lead them to switch to the other, which is the main premise of the argument. It provides a direct reason for the consumer behavior shift predicted by the conclusion.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:
A) Any disease that affects a bovid such as the cashmere goat is unlikely to cross the biological order line and affect lagomorphs such as the angora rabbit. This is an irrelevant fact. It confirms the supply of angora won't be affected by the disease, which is already a given assumption, but it doesn't explain *why* consumers would switch from cashmere to angora.

B) Most consumers cannot tell the difference between cashmere and angora, which are both expensive and similar in texture. While this might seem plausible, it's not as strong as D. The fact that consumers can't tell the difference doesn't necessarily mean they'll switch. They might simply choose a non-luxury item, or just buy less. Option D directly addresses the *reason* for the purchase, which is what the conclusion is built on.

C) When the price of one luxury item sharply rises, many other luxury items see a slight increase in price. This weakens the argument. If the price of angora also increases, it makes it less likely that consumers will switch to it as a cheaper alternative.

E) The sales of luxury items are far less sensitive to price fluctuations than are most inexpensive staple items. This also weakens the argument. If luxury item sales are not very sensitive to price changes, then the sharp rise in cashmere prices might not significantly reduce its sales. Consequently, there would be less reason for consumers to seek out a substitute like angora.

Research has shown that shoppers who purchase garments in a "luxury"

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Research has shown that shoppers who purchase garments in a "luxury"

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards