Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:04 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:04
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
arjunsathish
User avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2025
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 83
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 8
Kudos: 1
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which 21 Jul 2025, 05:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I understand that option B is a good answer but I kinda convinced that option A is right, because what is superstores own a large percentage of these contracts from the large customers which gives them a larger piece of the pie , while at the same time maintaining a low market share. It would explain why despite the low market share superstores have contributed to many small businesses going out of business
GMATNinja
hazelnut
GMATNinja, Could you help to explain why (A) is wrong?
The analysis in question is:

  • The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business can be attributed to the advent of office equipment superstores, whose high sales volume keeps their prices low.
  • Many small firms have gone out of business because of this upheaval.

The author argues that this analysis is flawed. Why? Because "even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market." Choice (A) might help explain WHY superstores control only a very small share of the retail market, but it does not weaken the author's argument.

The author basically says, "How could it be true that superstores have caused the upheaval if superstores only control a very small share of the retail market?" Choice (B) answers that question. The superstores might only control a very small share, but their heavy advertising has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies. Even without a large market share, the superstores have had an effect on the entire market (an effect that would likely put several small firms out of business).

This strengthens the analysis in question and thus weakens the author's argument.
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which 30 Jul 2025, 08:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
arjunsathish
I understand that option B is a good answer but I kinda convinced that option A is right, because what is superstores own a large percentage of these contracts from the large customers which gives them a larger piece of the pie , while at the same time maintaining a low market share. It would explain why despite the low market share superstores have contributed to many small businesses going out of business
Show more
The passage revolves around the recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business. Customers who purchase directly from the manufacturers bypass the retail market, so neither the superstores nor the smaller retail stores would be involved in or profit from those sales.

Because choice (A) is about non-retail sales, it isn't relevant to the argument. For more on choice (A), check out these posts:

User avatar
rak08
User avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 236
Own Kudos:
21
Given Kudos: 338
Location: India
Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 7.14
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26
Posts: 236
Kudos: 21
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which 26 Oct 2025, 01:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

Please let me know if this thought process is wrong

Superstores has been talked about only for office supplies and then conclusion says "in the entire retail market their share is low so the analysis is wrong"

now if the share of office supplies in the retail market becomes low then it makes sense why the superstores have lower total share. hence we pick B because the entire market's pricing became lower thereby contributing lower to the entire retail market share.
GMATNinja

Choice (A) is not talking about the retail market at all. Instead, it talks about non-retail sales to manufacturers. Thus, (A) is not relevant to this argument.

Yes, (B) does not PROVE that the author's argument is wrong. It is certainly possible that small retail firms could survive despite lower prices. But we are simply looking for the answer that, if true, would most weaken the argument.

If (B) is true, then the small firms MUST have lowered their prices. Unless they can suddenly cut costs, this means that their revenues and profits have decreased. This could certainly explain why many small firms have gone out of business.

Again, we don't need to prove that the lowered prices caused many small firms to go out of business. But (B) definitely weakens the author's argument by providing evidence supporting that possibility.

I hope that helps!
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
 [1]
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which 07 Nov 2025, 16:24
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rak08
[url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=GMATNinja%5D%5Bb%5DGMATNinja%5B/b%5D%5B/url%5D

Please let me know if this thought process is wrong

Superstores has been talked about only for office supplies and then conclusion says "in the entire retail market their share is low so the analysis is wrong"

now if the share of office supplies in the retail market becomes low then it makes sense why the superstores have lower total share. hence we pick B because the entire market's pricing became lower thereby contributing lower to the entire retail market share.

Show more
Yup! If we're trying to weaken the claim that superstores did not play an important role in the upheaval in the office-equipment industry, then we're looking for an answer choice showing that the superstores did play an important role in this upheaval, despite being a small percentage of the total market.

That's exactly what (B) does. The superstores lower their prices. This move prompts other stores to match those prices, and then this price competition causes smaller stores to go out of business. And then we've got our upheaval.

Nice work!
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts