Last visit was: 05 Dec 2024, 13:00 It is currently 05 Dec 2024, 13:00
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
souvik101990
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Last visit: 09 Nov 2024
Posts: 4,328
Own Kudos:
52,153
 [43]
Given Kudos: 2,326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
Posts: 4,328
Kudos: 52,153
 [43]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
41
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 97,565
Own Kudos:
683,393
 [5]
Given Kudos: 88,195
Products:
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 97,565
Kudos: 683,393
 [5]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
jugglerG2
Joined: 21 Sep 2014
Last visit: 18 Jun 2021
Posts: 206
Own Kudos:
121
 [3]
Given Kudos: 73
Status:Birds fly because they have wings, not because they have sky.
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.65
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
shriramvelamuri
Joined: 27 Dec 2013
Last visit: 29 Jun 2016
Posts: 163
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 113
Posts: 163
Kudos: 130
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HI Souvik,

IMO, C or A.

The conclusion is ... Carpets producting companies can only get a market share when they merge. Agressive marketing does ont yield profits.

To break the conclusion, the aim will be either to say, ' Simple marketing can reap lots of profits' Or 'Mergers will not be useful'

My thought process.

B: Out of scope

D: Does not break the conclusion.

E: Customer choice is out of scope.


A: 2 of the 3 mergers have failed: Mergers have failed. We cannot standardise somethng that happend for 3 companies to the whole industry.

C: Most established carpet producers sell various brands but there is no niche; Hence there will not be any use in merging with other companies.


Please let me know whether this is correct.



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.
User avatar
arnabs
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Last visit: 29 Oct 2020
Posts: 45
Own Kudos:
14
 [2]
Given Kudos: 17
Posts: 45
Kudos: 14
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shriramvelamuri
HI Souvik,

IMO, C or A.

The conclusion is ... Carpets producting companies can only get a market share when they merge. Agressive marketing does ont yield profits.

To break the conclusion, the aim will be either to say, ' Simple marketing can reap lots of profits' Or 'Mergers will not be useful'

My thought process.

B: Out of scope

D: Does not break the conclusion.

E: Customer choice is out of scope.


A: 2 of the 3 mergers have failed: Mergers have failed. We cannot standardise somethng that happend for 3 companies to the whole industry.

C: Most established carpet producers sell various brands but there is no niche; Hence there will not be any use in merging with other companies.


Please let me know whether this is correct.



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.


Hi shriramvelamuri,
A states something that happened 10 years back. Does this warrant the fact that it might recur?? I dont think so, hence, A is ruled out.
As for C, most established carpet producers market under several brands. This does not affect the conclusion. To weaken the conclusion we need to say that "Carpet producing companies can gain a market share NOT through merging, BUT through aggressive marketing."
Option D does exactly that; When other producers are forced to leave the market, there's no room for a merger and dominant firms are reducing prices substantially, which is aggressive marketing. Hence, D. Hope that was helpful. :)
User avatar
gmatexam439
User avatar
Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Last visit: 18 Oct 2024
Posts: 1,070
Own Kudos:
2,057
 [1]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Products:
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Posts: 1,070
Kudos: 2,057
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. -we are not worried about the profits

B. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well. -the argument is only about carpet market

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 doesn't explain the market share of the market players.

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. -Correct. So there is another reason (cost cutting) that might help in improving the market share of a company.

E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles. -out of scope
User avatar
CEdward
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,227
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,227
Kudos: 221
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone distill C into simpler terms? I see why D is correct now, but the way I rationalized C is as follows:

Basically aggressive advertising is useful because it protects against losses in market share (e.g. crowding others out phenomenon). So advertising does have a role to play...
User avatar
SDW2
Joined: 17 Jun 2020
Last visit: 05 Mar 2024
Posts: 102
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 314
Location: India
Schools: Simon '25
Schools: Simon '25
Posts: 102
Kudos: 11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



As always, the key to success is to isolate the conclusion, which appears in the last sentence: “companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors.” As you should have noted while reading, the conclusion contains a conditional indicator and is thereby conditional in nature. The conclusion can be diagrammed as: GMS = gain market share in the carpet market, PC = purchasing competitors. GMSPC. According to the author, to gain market share in the carpet market a company must purchase a competitor. Answer choice (C) is often selected by students, but it does not attack this idea. To attack a conditional statement you must show that the necessary condition is not actually necessary for the sufficient condition to occur. Answer choice (C) simply suggests that when companies purchase their competitors the endeavor is often financially unsuccessful. Essentially, answer choice (C) fails to prove that purchasing competitors is unnecessary to gain market share. Answer choice (D), on the other hand, does suggest a way for companies to gain market share without purchasing competitors, thereby attacking the conditional statement given in the stimulus. Thus, answer choice (D) is correct.

Answer choice (A): This answer goes beyond the scope of the argument, which is limited to the carpet market (and not other floor coverings).

Answer choice (B): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the argument. If there are no remaining niches to fill, then there is no way to expand other than to purchase a competitor.

Answer choice (C): This attractive answer is wrong for two very strong reasons: 1. A Shell Game is played with the details of the conclusion. The conclusion is about market share. Answer choice (C) is about a decline in profits and revenues. The two are not the same, and so the information in the answer choice does not weaken the conclusion. 2. Even if you assume that market share is the same thing as profits and revenues, a second Shell Game is played because the answer then attacks a conclusion that is similar but different than the given conclusion. If the conclusion were as follows: PCGMS, then answer choice (C) would be correct (again, assuming market share is the same thing as profits and revenues). But, the above is a Mistaken Reversal of the conclusion, and so the attack is made on a statement that uses the same terms as the conclusion but puts them in a different relationship. This is a great example of the cleverness displayed by the test makers. Fortunately you can avoid this answer if you know what to look for when attacking conditional reasoning. One point worth noting is that it is no accident that the most tempting wrong answer choice appears just before the correct answer.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. If price reductions drive out some of the carpet producers, then other producers can take the market share left behind. This scenario shows that a company can gain market share without purchasing a competitor, thus attacking the necessary condition in the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This Opposite answer strengthens the argument. If the consumers are resistant to new styles, then one fewer possibility exists if a company is trying to increase market share. By eliminating this option, the conclusion is strengthened (by eliminating an idea that would hurt the argument, one can strengthen the argument because it has fewer “competitors.”).

Hello,
Can any expert explain the bold part in explanation of option C (which is actually referring to option A in the question)? and also why the correct option D is chosen over this option?
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep egmat
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 15,531
Own Kudos:
70,040
 [2]
Given Kudos: 449
Location: Pune, India
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,531
Kudos: 70,040
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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)
User avatar
Fdambro294
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Last visit: 19 Oct 2024
Posts: 1,371
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,658
Posts: 1,371
Kudos: 634
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the official answer, i think the answers may be switched around.

In the official explanation, C is referring to A, and A is referring to C.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 2,740
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 764
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,740
Kudos: 2,003
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. - WRONG. Past is irrelevant. Additionally, nothing about market share.

B. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well. - WRONG. Scope shift. Irrelevant.

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. - WRONG. Having no niche is a disaster for new carpet makers. With already blue market turning red, acquiring seems to be the only way to increase the share.

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. - CORRECT. If producers are leaving then that share of market are easy to be captured by those not leaving. This leaves us with another way of increasing the market share instead of just acquiring a competitors.

E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles. - WRONG. New Patterns, whether by old established players or new ones, aren't liked by consumers so increasing market shares is possible by acquiring competitors. As new players may like to bring new patterns wherein old ones may stick to old patterns since they know it well, acquiring seems to be a good idea to increase share.

Answer D.
User avatar
Elite097
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 615
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 339
Location: India
GPA: 3.64
Posts: 615
Kudos: 363
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB in choice E, the factt hat customers are resistant to new styles, doesnt it weaken the conclusion since buying competitors will not make sense any more as consumers are resistant to new styles MartyMurray GMATNinja
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 1,219
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 106
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,219
Kudos: 3,345
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Elite097
in choice E, the factt hat customers are resistant to new styles, doesnt it weaken the conclusion since buying competitors will not make sense any more as consumers are resistant to new styles 
In a sense, buying a competitor involves taking over the competitor's business.

The competitor's business involves selling carpet. So, a competitor in the carpet industry must be selling carpet of styles that consumers have been buying.

Thus, while buying a competitor may results in the buying company selling styles that are new to the buying company, the styles are not new to consumers.

So, (E) does not bring up any problem with the strategy of buying competitors because that strategy does not involve selling carpet of styles new to consumers.
User avatar
sindor2001
Joined: 16 Aug 2022
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 23
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
QS: If true Weakens
Argument:
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.
Conclusion
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.

How to weaken the conclusion? Negate the means leading to a conclusion, but keep the conclusion. So you either say 'not only through purchasing competitors' or say 'through more agressive marketing'

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.---?Through purchasing competitors!. So OUT

B. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.--->Other things don't weaken the argument. So, OUT

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.----> Tempting at first sight, but it is about purchasing competitors! OUT

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.----> Isn't it a more agressive marketing?! Yeap. Keep it now

E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles.---->Unlike most markets? We don't care of the differences. OUT

So, D is correct
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7147 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts