GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 31 May 2020, 15:30

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
Posts: 53
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q51 V26
GPA: 3.1
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2018, 21:02
1
GMATNinja, GMATninja2, Does not option A break the assumption of the author i.e. with small retail market share a company cannot cause upheaval in the office-equipment retail business.

For option B my thought is- Despite prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies can small firms not survive in the market? yes they can

I would appreciate your assistance to clear my doubt how option B is a better choice.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3440
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2018, 10:21
gsingh0711 wrote:
GMATNinja, GMATninja2, Does not option A break the assumption of the author i.e. with small retail market share a company cannot cause upheaval in the office-equipment retail business.

For option B my thought is- Despite prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies can small firms not survive in the market? yes they can

I would appreciate your assistance to clear my doubt how option B is a better choice.

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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3440
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2018, 10:22
gsingh0711 wrote:
GMATNinja, GMATninja2, Does not option A break the assumption of the author i.e. with small retail market share a company cannot cause upheaval in the office-equipment retail business.

For option B my thought is- Despite prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies can small firms not survive in the market? yes they can

I would appreciate your assistance to clear my doubt how option B is a better choice.

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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1369
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 7: 710 Q47 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2019, 17:20
The actual stem could be better written to avoid confusion. Or maybe I'm just easily confused.

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.

I constantly thought the argument said "volumes keep" super stores prices low - so it made no sense to me what was going on until I realised I mixed this up.
_________________
Here's how I went from 430 to 710, and how you can do it yourself:
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2018
Posts: 117
Location: India
Schools: HBS '21
GPA: 4
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Feb 2020, 07:32
1
Curly05 wrote:
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.

Wow surprisingly all this becomes easy when you understand the GAP and know what you are looking for .

small businesses are closing becoz super stores keep prices low (becoz they have high sales volume ). and we need to weaken the conclusion that superstores are not the reason for failures/closures of small businesses .
We need to show that small businesses closed because of these superstores .

So correct answer will fill this GAP. and clearly B is correct
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
B makes sense as we were talking about price and small business don't have high sales so they can never compete this price .
NOTE- always follow the logic and info used in STEM to weaken the argument . Weaken contains outside info but right outside info would contain similar link /connection /structure /logic .

OPTION (A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market. fails to show how SUPERSTORES have made small businesses suffer . Option A is just extra info it doesn't help us understand this GAP we are looking for.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.- Owning MOST of the OE doesn't help us understand how big stores made small business run out of business . May be some of the equipment which big stores don't have could have been available with small stores / business . So this doesn't weaken and isn't best ans .
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2019
Posts: 406
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2020, 01:24
main FOUR words of the argument : "keeps their prices low"
It is the reason for grasping all the customers in order to control the retail market .
superstores are doing so but small firms are unable to that.
someone has purported "keeps their prices low" is the reason for kicking small firms out of the market . but does "keeps their prices low" come ? according to that person it is just because superstores have large percent of share in the market.
author says logic is flawed because superstores have small percentage of share in market .

we have to weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed . so percentage of share ( contradicting factor between someone and the author ) is not the reason. we have to find another reason from answer choice which will be the deciding factor for superstores by keeping prices low to rule the market and keep small firms out of it.

option (1) : Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.

The retail supply chain consists of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and the consumer (end user). so, here consumers are directly linked with manufacturers ; option doesn't consider retail market. so. this is out of scope.

option (2) : The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
here comes the another reason what we were just looking for. heavy advertising is the cause to keep the prices low and to capture the whole market . so. the flaw is weakened by this choice.

option (3) : Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
The goal is to show that something that the superstores did had an impact (in this case negative) on the small business sales.
just opposite to our intended search .

option (4) : Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
the ownership of the superstores isn't relevant to the argument. the scope of the passage is limited to the retail market for office supplies. so, "large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods " is totally out of scope .

option (5) : The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock. so what? retails are not stocking new equipments? definitely prices will be changed for the new products but will affect the market in the same way as the old products did.

Re: The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which   [#permalink] 16 Apr 2020, 01:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 26 posts ]