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 superstores whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed? (A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market. (B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies. (C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business. (D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods. (E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.

Last visit was: 29 Apr 2026, 13:39

It is currently 29 Apr 2026, 13:39

Toolkit

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2

arjunsathish

Joined: 14 Feb 2025

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 7

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 82

Posts: 7

Kudos: 1

21 Jul 2025, 05:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,830

Given Kudos: 2,133

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,830

30 Jul 2025, 08:19

Kudos

Bookmarks

arjunsathish

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:

rak08

Joined: 01 Feb 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 268

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 405

Location: India

Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26

GPA: 7.14

Schools: NUS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Aug '26

Posts: 268

Kudos: 28

26 Oct 2025, 01:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

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!

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,830

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,133

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,830

[1]

07 Nov 2025, 16:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

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

7391 posts

AbhishekP220108

509 posts

bhanu29

363 posts