The prices for all kinds of fish sold in Eastville's downtown Old Market are much lower than the prices charged at uptown seafood stores. Old Market vendors buy fish of similar quality from the same wholesalers and at the same prices as uptown vendors do. Therefore, since Old Market fish vendors' businesses are as profitable as those uptown, the volume of the Old Market vendors' daily fish sales must, on average, be higher.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
A. People who buy fish at Old Market stores generally have lower incomes than do those who buy fish from uptown seafood stores.
B. Some varieties of fish that are not available at Old Market stores can be found occasionally at uptown seafood stores.
C. Vendors at the old Market save on energy costs by keeping fish on ice instead of in refrigerated cases.
D. Many of the people who live in uptown Eastville prefer to buy fish from the neighborhood stores.
E. Fish vendors at the Old Market do not, on average, have lower overhead costs than uptown vendors do.
sayantanc2k wrote:
Old market vendor:
material cost per unit: M
overhead cost unit: OH1
SP per unit: SP1
Profit per unit P1 = SP1 - (M+OH1)
Total Profit P1 x N1 (N1 is the number of units sold by Old Market)
Uptown vendor:
material cost per unit: M (same as old market vendor)
overhead cost unit: OH2
SP per unit: SP2 (which is >SP1)
Profit per unit P2 = SP2 - (M+OH2)
Total Profit = P2 x N2 (no. of unit ssold by Uptown vendor)
The conclusion has two parts: 1. total profits are same P1 x N1 = P2 x N2, 2. P1<P2 and N1>N2
Any statement that supports one of the above would qualify as a strengthening statement.
Option E: If old market vendors DO NOT have less overhead costs than the upmarket vendors then they have total cost equal to or more than that of upmarket vendors - Since SP1 <SP2, this supports that P1<P2.
Hi!
sayantanc2kThank you for your inputs to this club and your remarkable short turn around time.
i read the argument, the conclusion unarguably, because of the "therefore", presented itself in - "since Old Market fish vendors' businesses are as profitable as those uptown, the volume of the Old Market vendors' daily fish sales must, on average, be higher".
Conclusion - The volume of sales must be higher for Old Market.
To strengthen - The choice should reflect a reason for higher turnout at the old market.
None of the answers help with this reasoning except for "D. Many of the people who live in uptown Eastville prefer to buy fish from the neighborhood stores."
But the option would have been more appropriate if - "People prefer to buy fish from the neighborhood stores, and Old Market is in the heart of the city (densely populated)."
So, I rephrased the argument.
Old Market vendors buy fish of similar quality from the same wholesalers and at the same prices as uptown vendors do.
Therefore, since Old Market fish vendors' businesses are as profitable as those uptown, the volume of the Old Market vendors' daily fish sales must, on average, be higher.
Therefore, The prices for all kinds of fish sold in Eastville's downtown Old Market are much lower than the prices charged at uptown seafood stores.
This simplified the answer choices and (E) pops out easily.
Most of the explanations above are mathematical but in my opinion do not affect the conclusion "volume of sales must be higher".
My question - 1. The question is legit as it is from Question pack 2. GMAC mixes up the conclusion sometimes, can this question be an example of the same. The "therefore" is not the main conclusion.
Thanks in Advance.