Harsh9676
Hi
I Agree that B is incorrect choice. the exclusive contracts could be already existing.
But, I don't agree with D as well. Cause It never said that Rubco caters to Customers and even if Rubco does cater, it does not answer whether customers are inclined to buy from Rubco as they can get the same at a cheaper price from Maxilux.
There are too many assumptions to make in this choice.
Remember that the correct answer does not have to
prove the argument. It simply has to be the choice that
most strongly justifies the claim made by Rubco's executives.If true, choice (D) tells us very explicitly that consumers of a car like the Max 100 will almost invariably replace a worn part with a part of the exact same make and type. This implies that Max 100 owners will replace worn Rubco Max 100 tires with new Rubco Max 100 tires. This effectively increases the expected number of tire sales per Max 100 beyond what is supplied to initially manufacture the car.
You ask whether customers could obtain these tires from Rubco or from Maxilux. But we already know that
Rubco is the manufacturer of the tires. So in either instance, Rubco can expect to make a profit, almost invariably, whenever a tire on the Max 100 wears out and needs to be replaced. Either Rubco supplies to Maxilux and earns on that wholesale, or Rubco sells directly to consumers and earns on the retail sale.
Yes, there is some logical wiggle room here because we don't have 100% confirmation of how replacement tire sales fit into the bid and its long-term conditions. We also don't know the precise rate of replacement, and we don't know what Rubco considers to be a fantastic profit margin vs. a sufficient profit margin.
But we don't need any fo those confirmations, because we know from the prompt that Rubco sells the tires, and (D) confirms that people will almost invariably continue to buy them.
I hope this helps!