The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Feb 2017, 21:26

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business,

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 247
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 17:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment â€œsuperstoresâ€
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 851
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 17:18
B

advertising of low prices has forced the prices down in the retail market..which directly supports the evidence in the argument
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1493
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 21:18
we need to show that the superstors control large portion of the market so that these store can keep the price down..

(A) strenghten the argument.

(B) The superstoresâ€™ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.......... it only weakens that the prices are not low.
(C) out of scope. irrelavant.
(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.. if these superstore are owned by the large retail chain, these super store control large portion/share of the market and this control reduces the prices. of the office equipment.
(E) also strenghten the argument.

Director
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 21:53
MA wrote:
(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.. if these superstore are owned by the large retail chain, these super store control large portion/share of the market and this control reduces the prices. of the office equipment.

I think u r right.. I was looking for this kind of answer but could not understand the meaning of (D)
Intern
Joined: 27 Jun 2004
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 22:12
My choice would be D.

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
This cannot weaken the argument. It's more of an irrelevant detail.

(B) The superstoresâ€™ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
Even if this is true, it explains the lower prices of the office equipment and does not refute the flawed analysis.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
Not useful to weaken the argument.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
In this case, the large retailing chains hold a major portion of the office-equipment marketshare instead of the superstores which sell them, 'cos these chains own such stores. And since this results in superstores owning a large marketshare of office equipments, it readily results in lower prices of the same.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
Nope. No impact on the argument.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 625 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 23:26
[quote="swath20"]The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment â€œsuperstoresâ€
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 851
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 23:35
[quote="swath20"]The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment â€œsuperstoresâ€
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 625 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2005, 01:08
OKOK, I changed my mind, it's D now.

Evidence: high sales volumn of the office equipment â€œsuperstoresâ€
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 367 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2005, 01:18
(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
- does not explain why superstores forced the retail outlets to close

(B) The superstoresâ€™ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
- If so, only the superstores could survive since they have a high sales volume. Samll firms which do not have such a high volume of sales can no longer compete.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
- only tells us superstores may not be always profitable to stay in business. It does not tells us why small firms go bust.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
- tells us large retail chains also sell other types of goods. But does selling other products, (for instance, cars) affect the business of small retail business that deal only in office-equpiment ? No, it doesn't. We still do not have a valid reason why small firms are forced to go out of business even though superstores own only a small share of the retail market.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
- Out of scope.

(B) it is.
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 610
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2005, 06:38
B doesn't weaken the argument. it suggests why the prices went down where as
D weakens it .
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 367 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2005, 07:47
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

You are right. I did not read the question carefully

I've highlighted the parts which is important to answer the question. D would do nicely as it suggests the small retails went bust not because of competition from large superstores.
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 247
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2005, 08:14
Thanks guys for the explanations.

OA is B
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 329 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2005, 09:12
Refuting argument: The upheaval in the office equipment retail business can be attributed to the superstores where prices are low and sales are high.
Argument: The analysis is wrong because the superstore's market share is very small. (If their mkt share is small then they should not have affected the entire business.)

Ask for weakening (for the argument, or support for the refuting argument).

(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
This is irrelavent to the argument since the argument only concers retail market.

(B) The superstoresâ€™ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
This should be the right answer. Their mkt share maybe small, but they have affected the entire industry with their low price.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
This doesn't not say anything much one way or the other.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
What their owners sell in the other markets is irrelevant to the office equipment retail market.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
Again irrelevant.
Re: CR- office eqpmt   [#permalink] 08 Mar 2005, 09:12
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, 1 01 Jan 2013, 11:07
3 The Blackridge Company, a software retailer, recently 15 19 Nov 2011, 11:47
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, 6 01 Apr 2010, 23:48
Opening a retail business in Kosovo is not inadvisable, 14 30 Jun 2009, 23:00
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, 11 01 Apr 2007, 10:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by