It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 12:17

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
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 11:50
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 [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 1020

Kudos [?]: 202 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 12:03
The claim of the paragraph is that the reason for small stores going out of business is superstores.
Argument: the market share of superstores is still very small, thereofore they can't be the reason for small stores being ousted.

I like B because it points out a flaw in the argument's logic. Yes, the market share for superstores can be small, however they are responsible for a side-effect that is not taken into account in the argument. Because superstores advertise heavily, consumers know how much they can get a certain office appliance for, and as a result are not willing to pay higher prices in smaller strores that do not have volumes to keep the prices down.

Woody, is that the answer choice you got?

Kudos [?]: 202 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 506

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 0

Location: Indonesia

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 12:09
For me its B

Explanation

(A) Our discussion is meant for retail business and not outside retail-
wrong.
(B) advertisement of low prices forced prices down in the retail market- thus forcing small retails shops, which has lower volume to make profit, out of business-correct.
(C) meaningless-wrong.
(D)Doesnt matter-wrong
(E) Out of scope-wrong.

Let me know that OA pls

regards,

Amardeep

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 12:33
recent upheaval is attributed to advent of superstores which drive prices down

we need a statement that supports the above

The superstoresâ€™ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.

hence B
_________________

AimHigher

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 591

Kudos [?]: 318 [0], given: 0

Location: Kuwait

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 12:43
I LOVE using the process of elimination:

(A) Scope shift
(D) Irrelevant to the argument
(E) Irrelevant to the argument as the type of equipments that must be stocked does not touch the argument.

Deciding between C and B:
(B) The superstoresâ€™ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
It is clear here how this weakens the argument as it strengthens the argument that superstores are causing small retail stores go out of business because they have an impact on the retail-store's pricing policy.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
This doesn't give a better alternative for B. The fact that some recently opened superstores have gone outta business does NOT do change anything about the statement that the argument is flawed. There is a possibility that both the new superstores and the small retail stores are all going outta business because of some other experienced superstores.

OA is B

PS: This question is queston 16 from the CR1000 list. So you guys got it correct

Kudos [?]: 318 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 506

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 0

Location: Indonesia

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 12:55
Thanks Mishari

regards,

Amardeep

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 17:54
OA is B, however I do not think so.

The question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?"

The claim of the argument is: "...This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market". This claim talks nothing about price. Hence (B) is out of scope.

On the other hand, because the claim questions about "the high sales volume"--as marked above, because (A) provides adequate information to refute the claim, and because no information presented demonstrates that the "superstores" are not manufacturers or manufactures' agent, (A) is the best answer for me.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 257

Kudos [?]: 260 [0], given: 0

Location: California

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 18:01
Clearly B..

argument is for analysis to be flawed.. which is about superstores having no hand in pulling smaller stores down..

if they did advertised about low prices, clearly they are responsible.. hence weaken the argument..

Kudos [?]: 260 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

Show Tags

01 Apr 2007, 20:06
A -> supports the argument
D -> irrelevant
E -> irrelevant

I like B. It tells us the conclusion is flawed because the prices of the retail outlets have been forced low, and since they have lower sales volume compared to megastores, the retail outlets are going to find it increasingly hard to sustain any form of business.

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

Show Tags

02 Apr 2007, 08:50
wudy wrote:
OA is B, however I do not think so.

The question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?"

The claim of the argument is: "...This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market". This claim talks nothing about price. Hence (B) is out of scope.

On the other hand, because the claim questions about "the high sales volume"--as marked above, because (A) provides adequate information to refute the claim, and because no information presented demonstrates that the "superstores" are not manufacturers or manufactures' agent, (A) is the best answer for me.

Wudy - I think you've slightly misinterpreted the claim of the argument. The argument does NOT claim that Superstores control only a small portion of the retail market.

The argument is simply that Superstores are driving the prices down. This claim, however, the argument states is FLAWED and gives as a Reason (to support why it is flawed) that the superstores control only a small portion of the retail market.

By doing this - the argument tries to create an illusion and sort of divert our attention from the central point - that the superstores are driving retail owners out of the business by selling at low prices owing their higher volumes. The argument says this reasoning is flawed and presents as evidence (to support its claim) that the superstores control only a small portion of the retail market. This "evidence" is NOT the claim of the argument.

Anything that supports the fact that superstores are driving the prices down would in effect weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed.

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Apr 2007, 16:00
dwivedys wrote:
Wudy - I think you've slightly misinterpreted the claim of the argument. The argument does NOT claim that Superstores control only a small portion of the retail market.

The argument is simply that Superstores are driving the prices down. This claim, however, the argument states is FLAWED and gives as a Reason (to support why it is flawed) that the superstores control only a small portion of the retail market.

By doing this - the argument tries to create an illusion and sort of divert our attention from the central point - that the superstores are driving retail owners out of the business by selling at low prices owing their higher volumes. The argument says this reasoning is flawed and presents as evidence (to support its claim) that the superstores control only a small portion of the retail market. This "evidence" is NOT the claim of the argument.

Anything that supports the fact that superstores are driving the prices down would in effect weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed.

Good explain, Gotcha.
I misunderstood-- "high sales volume" comes not from saling the office-equipment but from other stuffs, for example: groceries.
Thank you very much.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 147

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Apr 2007, 16:43
my choice is (B).

other variants are out of topic.

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

02 Apr 2007, 16:43
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®.