arvs212 wrote:
There is relativley 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 ot 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 agressive marketing.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?
(A) Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
(B) 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.
(C) Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the the newly merged companies.
(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.
Conclusion: the ONLY WAY to gain market share is to purchase competing companies, not by more aggressive marketing.
I think (D) undermines this conclusion, it demonstrates ways other than mergers (namely cost-cutting & price reduction) by which companies can gain market share. I know this does not undermine the second part of the conclusion, which is that "aggressive marketing cannot increase market share", but I think (D) is still the best of the available choices.
A - Irrelevant, does not strengthen or weaken.
B - This seems to strengthen, rather than weaken the conclusion. It reinforces the conclusion that "there is NO OTHER WAY" by eliminating a possible method of competition (i.e. exploiting niche markets).
C - This weakens somewhat, it gives examples of failures of the current method (namely, buying out the competition), but it does not undermine the conclusion that buy-outs are the ONLY WAY.
E - This seems to strengthen the conclusion due to the same reason as B, it eliminates a course of action, which, if successful, might weaken the conclusion.