Smith Products fabricates machine tools that are essentially identical

­

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

D

The conclusion that Smith Products could gain an advantage by purchasing lower-cost raw materials is based on the evidence that raw materials represent the largest proportion of costs for both Smith and Jackson. For the conclusion to hold, Smith must assume the new raw materials will not have any other negative effects on its business. So, to weaken the argument, look for a choice that casts doubt on this assumption. (D) does so by stating that the low quality of the new materials will cause a drop in sales. If that occurs, using the new supplier will not create an advantage for Smith Products, and so (D) is the answer. (A) and (E) indicate other ways that Smith might gain an advantage, but they don't have any bearing on whether changing suppliers would create an advantage. (B) is similarly irrelevant; even if true, it doesn't provide any reason Smith should not use the new supplier. (C) is out of scope of the argument.­

­Argument Breakdown:

• Premise 1: Smith Products and Jackson Manufacturing produce essentially identical machine tools.
• Premise 2: For both companies, raw materials represent about two-thirds of the manufacturing cost.
• Conclusion: Smith Products should purchase raw materials from a new supplier advertising much lower prices to gain an edge over Jackson Manufacturing.

The conclusion relies on the assumption that purchasing cheaper raw materials will be beneficial without negatively affecting other aspects of the product or the company.

To weaken the argument, we need a statement that shows why purchasing from the new supplier might not give Smith Products an edge over Jackson Manufacturing.

A. Smith Products spends more on employee wages than Jackson Manufacturing does.
This does not address the impact of switching suppliers for raw materials. It’s irrelevant to the quality or effect of the new raw materials on Smith’s product.

B. Smith's current supplier provides raw materials of exceedingly high quality.
This implies that switching suppliers might result in lower quality, but it doesn’t directly address the impact on sales or competitiveness.

C. The market for machine tools has been declining for several years.
This is about the overall market conditions and does not directly affect the relative advantage Smith Products might gain from cheaper raw materials.

D. The new suppliers materials are of low quality and would reduce the lifespan of Smith machine tools by half, causing sales to decline.
This directly attacks the assumption that cheaper raw materials are beneficial. If the lower-quality materials reduce the lifespan of the tools and cause sales to decline, then switching suppliers would not give Smith Products an edge, and it might even be detrimental.

E. The plant manager for Smith Products is planning to increase the plant's efficiency.
While increasing efficiency might benefit Smith Products, it does not address the impact of switching raw material suppliers.The answer choice that most weakens the argument is D as This choice directly challenges the core assumption that cheaper raw materials will benefit Smith Products by highlighting a significant negative consequence.