|
|
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.
22 Jul 2020, 07:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. The ShopperKing totals averaged five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals. Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since __________.
(A) shoppers who shop regularly at a given supermarket generally choose that store for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often
Conclusion says that shopping at ShopperKing is not necessarily expensive. Notice that the premise said that the "total" was 5 percent higher in comparison of SK (ShopperKing) and FK(FoodBasket) supermarkets. However, we do not know any individual prices of each item in these two stores.
For example, a kid is going to the store with his mom. Prices are as follows:
Itesm/ SK niu FK
Toysnu 2 ndiuc 4
Food n40 ddd 30
Total c 42 ncc 34
From this table, we see that: overall, the kid and the mom would spend more if shopping at SK than at FK. However, If the kid buys toys regularly, he would spend less at SK and more at FK. Therefore, shopping at SK is not necessarily expensive.
(B) for shoppers with more than 20 items, the ShopperKing totals averaged more than five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals
Conclusion says that shopping at ShopperKing is not necessarily expensive. However, B confirms further that it is more expensive to shop at ShopperKing. Weakens the argument. Wrong.
(C) many shoppers consider factors other than price in choosing the supermarket at which they shop most regularly
The conclusion talks about the comparison of prices. C talks about how to choose supermarket. Irrelevant! No matter how C will tell you the decision of choosing, it still cannot explain shopping at which supermarket is cheaper. For example, a shopper values quality the most. SK has higher better quality and higher price, so the shopper would shop at SK for higher quality. However, that doesn't explain anything about shopping at SK might not be necessarily expensive (which is the conclusion).
Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. The ShopperKing totals averaged five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals. Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since __________.
(A) shoppers who shop regularly at a given supermarket generally choose that store for the low prices offered on the items that they purchase most often
Conclusion says that shopping at ShopperKing is not necessarily expensive. Notice that the premise said that the "total" was 5 percent higher in comparison of SK (ShopperKing) and FK(FoodBasket) supermarkets. However, we do not know any individual prices of each item in these two stores.
For example, a kid is going to the store with his mom. Prices are as follows:
Itesm/ SK niu FK
Toysnu 2 ndiuc 4
Food n40 ddd 30
Total c 42 ncc 34
From this table, we see that: overall, the kid and the mom would spend more if shopping at SK than at FK. However, If the kid buys toys regularly, he would spend less at SK and more at FK. Therefore, shopping at SK is not necessarily expensive.
(B) for shoppers with more than 20 items, the ShopperKing totals averaged more than five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals
Conclusion says that shopping at ShopperKing is not necessarily expensive. However, B confirms further that it is more expensive to shop at ShopperKing. Weakens the argument. Wrong.
(C) many shoppers consider factors other than price in choosing the supermarket at which they shop most regularly
The conclusion talks about the comparison of prices. C talks about how to choose supermarket. Irrelevant! No matter how C will tell you the decision of choosing, it still cannot explain shopping at which supermarket is cheaper. For example, a shopper values quality the most. SK has higher better quality and higher price, so the shopper would shop at SK for higher quality. However, that doesn't explain anything about shopping at SK might not be necessarily expensive (which is the conclusion).
07 Sep 2020, 21:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
What if the B were :
(B) for shoppers with more than 20 items, the FoodBasket totals averaged more than five percent higher than the ShopperKing totals
Could B better answer choice in that case?
GMATNinja mira93 VeritasKarishma
15 Sep 2020, 21:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
I chose B but now I realize A is definitely better.
With B, the limitation is that it narrow down the scope smaller than the described scope in the stimulus, arguing that the saving can be achieved with FoodBasket for basket size of at least 20 items (the described scope is overall basket size)
With A, the interpretation is that if users keep buy things that they have bought frequently, they will be saving more. The described calculation in the premise thereby doesn't necessarily lead to the argument that ShopperKing will be saving more for users than FoodBasket.
I don't understand the meaning of the choice A until I'm in hindsight mode, looking back and having more time to understand the meaning
With B, the limitation is that it narrow down the scope smaller than the described scope in the stimulus, arguing that the saving can be achieved with FoodBasket for basket size of at least 20 items (the described scope is overall basket size)
With A, the interpretation is that if users keep buy things that they have bought frequently, they will be saving more. The described calculation in the premise thereby doesn't necessarily lead to the argument that ShopperKing will be saving more for users than FoodBasket.
I don't understand the meaning of the choice A until I'm in hindsight mode, looking back and having more time to understand the meaning
