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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 29 Nov 2017, 01:33
4
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
25% (medium)
Question Stats:
75% (02:02) correct 25% (02:10) wrong based on 727 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers, and retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers than retail establishments that do not distribute fliers charge for equivalent items. Thus, if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s conclusion about the cost of retail goods to consumers?
A: The government has recently offered some subsidies to retail establishments to facilitate newspaper and radio advertisements. B: It is highly unlikely that the government would subsidize the distribution of fliers by retail establishments. C: Retail establishments that distribute fliers usually offer goods of a quality comparable to those of retail establishments that do not distribute fliers. D: The majority of retail establishments that distribute fliers would continue to do so even without government subsidies. E: Most retail establishments do not lower their price for particular items when they begin to distribute fliers in which those items are listed
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Mar 2014, 03:54
IMO E
Our conclusion: if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.
We need to weaken this causal relation here. One of the ways: cause happened but effect not followed. This is what option E says
Cause: the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments. Ideally this should follow up with Effect- more retail establishments will distribute fliers and retail establishments will decrease the cost of items for customers that are listed in the fliers.
But effect doesn't happen even when cause occurred and that's what option E says: Most retail establishments do not lower their price for particular items when they begin to distribute fliers in which those items are listed
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jul 2017, 22:21
The argument says, " retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers". Option E clearly undermines this fact by saying that the establishments will not lower prices of the listed items. Hence, I eliminated Option E because it goes against the premise.
Also, I don't understand why Option B is not the answer. The conclusion of the argument says if the govt. subsidizes, then the cost decreases. According to Option B, if the govt. does not subsidize, then the cost will not decrease. Hence, it weakens the conclusion.
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jul 2017, 22:23
The argument says, " retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers". Option E clearly undermines this fact by saying that the establishments will not lower prices of the listed items. Hence, I eliminated Option E because it goes against the premise.
Also, I don't understand why Option B is not the answer. The conclusion of the argument says if the govt. subsidizes, then the cost decreases. According to Option B, if the govt. does not subsidize, then the cost will not decrease. Hence, it weakens the conclusion.
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jun 2018, 23:36
Hi, in this question, does option 'E' not go against the grain of the question stem, which assumed that "retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items in the fliers...". Thanks a lot!
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Jun 2018, 01:09
riskietech wrote:
The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail establishments will distribute fliers, and retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items listed in the fliers than retail establishments that do not distribute fliers charge for equivalent items. Thus, if the government subsidized the distribution of fliers by retail establishments, the cost to consumers for retail items will drop.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s conclusion about the cost of retail goods to consumers?
A: The government has recently offered some subsidies to retail establishments to facilitate newspaper and radio advertisements. B: It is highly unlikely that the government would subsidize the distribution of fliers by retail establishments. C: Retail establishments that distribute fliers usually offer goods of a quality comparable to those of retail establishments that do not distribute fliers. D: The majority of retail establishments that distribute fliers would continue to do so even without government subsidies. E: Most retail establishments do not lower their price for particular items when they begin to distribute fliers in which those items are listed
D just tells us that we don't need subsidies to have our *current* situation. But the author is saying that if we had subsidies, *more* people would distribute fliers. The thinking is that this would drive down prices. We need to know whether a change (more fliers, more ads) would lead to lower prices, not whether subsidies are needed to maintain the status quo.
_________________
Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 Jun 2018, 23:41
jayantbakshi wrote:
Hi, in this question, does option 'E' not go against the grain of the question stem, which assumed that "retail establishments that distribute fliers generally charge less for items in the fliers...". Thanks a lot!
Option E includes modifier words like "most" and "particular", leaving the probability that some retail establishments do lower the prices for the retail goods mentioned in the fliers. The argument does not say most or some. Thus, E is not violating the premises.
Re: The lower the cost of distributing fliers, the more retail e
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Jun 2018, 00:40
jayantbakshiSonalSinha803 The trick with E is not just that it says "most." It has to do with whether advertising really does affect prices. We know for a fact that retailers charge less for things that they put in fliers than other (non-advertising) retailers charge for those items. But do they actually REDUCE their prices, or do they perhaps put out the fliers to advertise their already-low prices? In other words, do fliers cause low prices, or do low prices cause fliers? This kind of causal reasoning is extremely common in CR, so it's important to recognize opportunities to use it!
For an extreme example, think of basketball players. Basketball players are generally taller than other athletes of similar age and skill. But it's certainly also true that playing basketball does not generally make one taller. So we can't conclude that a government plan to encourage the playing of basketball would make the population taller.
That argument may seem very silly, but structurally, it's quite similar to the original, in that the author is using a correlation (fliers, low prices) to conclude something about causation (fliers CAUSE low prices).
_________________
Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York
close
75% (02:02) correct 
