Hey m1033512,

(C) is not an assumption of the plan, it is a reason for making the plan. In particular, note that the question is 'the plan assumes that...' while (C) states 'if there is no plan, then...'. But we don't care about what happens if there is no plan, we care about what is required for the plan to work.
_________________

The argument is that the new system will make customers prefer regular '2-day delivery' to premium 'next-day delivery' because the regular delivery takes one day anyways. They want to solve this by making sure regular delivery does not take one day. The main assumption of this argument is that people pick their service because of the one-day timeline, and not because of other reasons. A weaker assumption is that causing a delay in supply will not affect sales (this requires that potential customers know about the delay). As we know what to look for, we can look for it without pausing to think about each individual answer. This is a Precise approach.

Going over the options, (A) is exactly what we expect and is our answer.
_________________

How C is wrong ?


Could you help to understand that .

Posted from my mobile device

Got it !!!




Thanks

clearly A ;deliberate delay of packages will affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers
this weakens the conclusion ..

DavidTutorexamPAL VeritasKarishma gmat1393 nightblade354 generis

How many types of services does SES Comp offer?

Ok, so package delivered today will reach tomorrow to destination.


Is not this same as above?
_________________

Before the new distribution system, two services are available - regular service, which delivers products in 2 days and premium service, which delivers products in 1 day (next day).

After the new distribution system, regular service will deliver products to the destination next day. At the same time, premium service also delivers products next day. That means, regular service is offering the same benefit (i.e. next dat delivery) as the premium service offers (i.e. next dat delivery).

So, many premium service sales may become regular service sales. To avoid this drop in premium sales, regular service delivery is intentionally delayed (conclusion) to deliver the product in two days.

Super Express Shipping company assumes that the customers, who are supposed to get the delivery next day (using regular service) but are getting it in two days, are fine with two day delivery.

Choice A is close to the above assumption

If most people didn't have any preference for either two day or next day, then there would be, in the first place, any premium service, so Choice B is not relevant

Choice C is a kind of another conclusion, which itself requires an assumption to hold true. Clearly not an answer

Choice D, how expensive is not discussed in the argument, so out of scope

Choice E, no mention of competing companies and their services, and no mention of how these competing companies deliveries impact sales of Super Express Shipping company regular and premium services, so out of scope

we can come down to two options : A & C.

For C, it is a bit extreme.
We cannot assume that if this plan is not implemented, company would necessarily lose more money.
Company is assuming that its new efficient distribution system would not make up for the revenue loss and that's the reason it is proposing the plan but this could be one of many other plans to meet company's objective.

I'm not sure how you deduced this.

A company has just implemented the system - this isn't typically public knowledge so two-day delivery is in-line with the customer's expectations anyway.

The issue Is that the plan presupposes that the planned and intentional delay of deliveries would not become public and thus not result in damage to sales.
_________________

i chose wrong answer c...

how do we negate c? C. if the plan is implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system?

This would weaken the argument, right?

i chose wrong answer c...

how do we negate c? C. if the plan is implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system?

This would weaken the argument, right?

I don't understand why B is not an assumption here.

The passage states that "The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service, because its two-day service will usually arrive the following day anyway."

It must be true that people don't care whether their delivery arrive in one-day or two-day. That's why the company is concerned that people will choose not to use the premium service.

If people prefer one-day delivery to two-day, the company then won't have to worry about because the improvement won't affect the sales of its premium service.

Can anyone explain why B is not an assumption?

B. most people do NOT have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery
!B = most people DO have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery

Even if most people DO have a preference, Can we be SURE that the preference is for two-day delivery, NOT next-day delivery?
The true-GMAT options are supposed to be misleading, making the aspirant choose the favorability in the sea of ambiguity.

Let's say -

Case 1:

most people DO have a preference for two-day delivery.
The sales of the premium service will be negatively impacted substantially. - Weakener


Case 2:

most people DO have a preference for next-day delivery.
The sales of the premium service will NOT be impacted substantially; in fact, the sales of the premium service will enhance. - Strengthener

The meaning can sway in both the directions: either BETTER or WORSE

Any answer choice which can sway in both the directions is NEVER going to be the correct answer.
The impact of B is dicey at best. Thus, OUT.
_________________

Looking carefully, "C" is talking about profit. It is essentially saying that the lost of sales in overnight deliveries will be too high to be offset by the saving in cost from new distribution system.

But the goal in the argument is to ensure that revenue won't go down. So the cost saving from new distribution system is not in the equation yet.

At least, this is what I think

Adding few of my points to the discussion.

Answer should here be A.

C is wrong because it's not assumption to the plan. It might be an assumption to WHY there should be plan.

So, whenever we are trying to evaluate/strengthen/weaken a plan we should look for an option that has some impact on the goal of the plan. Option C has no impact on the goal of the plan, hence it is not an assumption or strengthener or weakener.

Regards,
Rishav

My two cents' worth here:

These questions usually fall under what would be called "They have a plan" questions, and the questions always almost follow the same pattern.

Someone will propose a certain course of action (here as " intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages") and outlines a pretty specific aim of that course of action (here "encourage sales of its next-day service"). The right answer will almost always be directly related to the specific aim of the plan, which tells us that's the part of the question we should zoom in on.

Here, we're looking for an assumption - which can appear in the form of a linking connector, or a defending statement that indeed tells us that the customers will buy his premium 1-day service.

The author's line of reasoning is to drive 'traffic' or sales to the premium 1-day overnight delivery plan by holding things up on their 'normal' 2-day delivery plans, EVEN THOUGH internally they have developed the same synergistic capability (their distribution system) to deliver either within 1 or 2 days. Try to personalize this argument as if you were the owner of the business:

1. I'm going to hold things up for my customers on the 2-day deliveries, even though I can almost always definitely deliver within 2 days.
2. Since 2-day deliveries are on hold up, customers will turn to my 1-day delivery service.

Missing connect: What if the customers are not happy already in the first place that their goods are being held up? What if they switch at that point? Then my 2-day deliveries would NEVER have the chance to even work.

This whole argument about driving traffic from 1 plan to the other assumes that the customers will behave as he predicts them to be. But he's missing the point in that there is a potential possibility they would not even give him the opportunity to sell his 1-day premium delivery service.

Hence, we have Option A which appears in the form of a defending assumption which tells us that the above stated possibility will not happen.

I was trying negation technique.

In option C, We say Company would loose more money on premium than thay save on New technology. hence new they should intentionally delay to retain premium customer .What ios wrong in this ?

ALso in option A why we are worrying about company image if we are comparing sales number ?

Hi Akshay

(C) gives us a probable reason to support the implementation of the plan. However, the question is somewhat different - the question asks us to identify that answer option which, if true, would support the reasoning and the conclusion presented in the question stimulus. An alternate reasoning that supports the same conclusion does not necessarily support the reasoning and conclusion that we are assessing.

For example, consider the following argument:

i) India should reduce its usage of fossil fuels in order to combat global climate change.

Now, let us consider an alternate reason for the same conclusion presented above:

ii) India should reduce its usage of fossil fuels as that will reduce its import bill, thereby strengthening its currency

While (ii) presents a different rationale than (i) for the same argument (that India should reduce its usage of fossil fuels), neither can be considered an underlying assumption for the other.

To address your second question, in (A), we are not only considering the company's image on a standalone basis. We are considering damage to the company's image that "significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers". If the image of the company is so impacted, that will clearly result in reduced sales numbers, potentially offsetting any savings made by the plan to delay regular shipments to preserve the privilege of premium customers. (A) states that such damage will not occur, which clearly is an underlying assumption for the reasoning presented for the plan in the question stimulus.

Hope this clarifies.
_________________

Argument -
New service = new system that can deliver a package in a single day. Traditional service = 2 days.
Effect of new service = decreased sales of premium service.
Company plan = intentionally delay service to improve the sales of premium service

Why wont the plan work - may be the delay affects the premium service in someway

(A) deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers
- If the delay affects the company's image --> it ultimately affects the premium service customers
- Correct

(B) most people do not have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery
- Analyse this option without negating it.
- If people do not have a preference then implementation of the plan itself will not yield any benefit
- Wrong

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system
- We need to analyse the situation considering that the plan is implemented. There can be numerous such hypothetical situations which can benefit or harm the plan.
- Wrong

(D) the overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently
- If the overnight service is too costly, there is a high possibility that there are already very few people opting for that plan and that number is not going to change much after implementation of the intentional delay. Thus the delay will not affect the premium service in any way.
- Wrong

(E) competing companies' delivery services rarely deliver packages to their destination earlier than their promised time
- Irrelevant