souvik101990
There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet market, which is tied to the size of the population. Most who purchase carpet do so only once or twice, first in their twenties or thirties, and then perhaps again in their fifties or sixties. Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.
Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?
A. Two of the three mergers in the industry’s last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly merged companies.
B. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
C. Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no remaining niche in the market for new brands to fill.
D. Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles.
Source: LSAT
I am not sure what the official explanation is trying to say. Here is my take on the options.
- People buy carpets only a couple of times in their lives.
- So there is little room for growth in carpet markets.
Conclusion: As population ages (fewer babies), to increase market share, companies will need to buy out competitors. Marketing will not help to increase market share.
So the conclusion says that since carpet market is not growing, the only way a company can have higher market share is by reducing the number of players in the market by buying out other companies. They cannot hope to attract new customers or customers away from other companies by marketing.
We need to weaken this conclusion.
A. Two of the three mergers in the industry’s last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly merged companies.
Irrelevant. We are concerned only about market share (out of the total sales in the industry, what % belongs to a particular company)
B. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
Irrelevant. Only carpets are within our scope.
C. Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no remaining niche in the market for new brands to fill.
This tells us that the market is maxed out. No new players can be successful since there is no space for them. So marketing will not be helpful. If one buys out another player, then yes, they will own all their brands and hence, increase their market share. This certainly does not weaken our conclusion. It seems to agree with our conclusion.
D. Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
Some players are leaving the market since they cannot give competitive pricing. So the number of players in the market are expected to reduce. Then marketing campaigns might be successful in getting higher market shares since there are going to be fewer players. Also it seems that marketing campaigns of price reductions are leading to higher market shares by driving out competitors. Then it may not be necessary to buy out other companies to increase market share. It weakens our conclusion.
E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles.
This supports that marketing campaigns may not have much impact. It doesn't weaken our conclusion.
Answer (D)