It is currently 15 Dec 2017, 13:55

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Olin (St. Louis) R1 | Tuck R1 | Ross R1 | Fuqua R1

### 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
VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1430

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2005, 19:15
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€

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2005, 20:32
in terms of lowering the price B weakens.
in terms of control of office equipment by the superstore, D weakens.

however, in final this analysis i.e. lowering of price by superstore, go with B.

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

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

Location: Phoenix

### Show Tags

08 May 2005, 22:49
Something that most weakens the argument that this analysis is flawed should strengthen the analysis the most.

B strengthens the analysis, because it says that because of superstores advertisement of low prices, the prices have crashed. This could get the smaller companies out of business.

A is wrong because it doesn't talk about retail market.

C talks about superstores going out of business - and doesn't talk about the reasons for superstores going out of business - thus doesn't affect the argument at all.

D is irrelevant.

E doesn't differentiate between the superstores and other retail stores - just describes a growing trend of growing demand for computer-relates furniture.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

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

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1430

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 May 2005, 03:23
Here is my problem with the question. In order to counter the arguement that the anaylsis is flawed, one should actually go-after the evidence on which that arguement is based upon i.e. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. ......The portion in BF is what we shud be after. What u guys think ?

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 848

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 May 2005, 04:22
banerjeea_98 wrote:
Here is my problem with the question. In order to counter the arguement that the anaylsis is flawed, one should actually go-after the evidence on which that arguement is based upon i.e. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. ......The portion in BF is what we shud be after. What u guys think ?

What you say is true, but you are restricting yourself to a specific evidence, instead you should look at it as, anything other than the conclusion is a evidence for the argument.

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 894

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 May 2005, 04:46
it's between B and D, i will say D

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 42

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

### Show Tags

09 May 2005, 05:41
to weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed => we need analysis that will strengthen the case that â€œsuperstoresâ€

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

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 126

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

### Show Tags

10 May 2005, 00:51
For me, A seems right. The argument states that the analysis is flawed because of today's small shares of the retail market that the superstores control. But in fact, the actual shares that the superstores have are much larger, a bigger part of this contribution is from purchase under contract directly with manufacturers.
Hence I choose A.
_________________

Regards,
Wunderbar03

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

Intern
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 32

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

### Show Tags

10 May 2005, 02:53
(D) it should be

The argument to support the view that 'analysis is flawed' is stated as the stores still have a small portion of the retail market.

This argument could be weakened only if it could be proved that the stores dont have a small portion of the market or by stating that the stores are a part of the larger retailing chains which have a wider presence in the retailing markets. And this is exactly what (D) does.
HTH

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

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2005, 10:44
Really confusing.

I think it should be b.

We need to say that the argument is NOT flawed.Based on the reasoning given in the argument before the last sentence/conclusion , the author says that the argument is flawed.Thus we need to strenthen the case presented.This is possible by B.

Im crossing my fingers.

Best.

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 273

Kudos [?]: 208 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2005, 11:30
B : Has to B

Only B weakens by saying that super stores has more than little effect on retail market.

Kudos [?]: 208 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 452

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2005, 14:32
I pick B.

what are selling in other store chain is irrelevant, so D is wrong.

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 245

Kudos [?]: 491 [0], given: 29

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2009, 01:09
has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low
1) Many small business have gone out business because of low prices .
This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.
2) This is flawed since superstores control just a small share of the market.

The flawed assumption is ; the smaller share which stores hold , the lesser power it/they can affect the prices.

Since B weaken this assumption by introducing new assumption it is the right choice.
Many small businesses have gone out of business because of low prices . Low prices are due to the heavy advertising of the superstores.
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Kudos [?]: 491 [0], given: 29

Re: CR: Market   [#permalink] 25 Jul 2009, 01:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.