GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Mar 2019, 09:32

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

To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 2560
Re: To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2019, 23:01
warrior1991 wrote:
generis Yeah !! I get the point you make.

Thank you yet again for a quick and a crisp response. I cannot thank you enough for helping me out every time. I owe you 'n' number of parties :) :)

You are very welcome. I owe a quite a few people virtual drinks.
We'll just all collect from one another. :)
_________________

And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you
because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places.
Those who don't believe in magic will never find it
.
—Roald Dahl

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9007
Location: Pune, India
To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2019, 04:21
warrior1991 wrote:
VeritasPrepBrian VeritasKarishma GMATNinja generis

I have a question regarding option E

Currently the option E is :-

Quote:
(E) Computer-industry analysts believed before the SuperComp campaign began that most consumers who already owned home computers were not yet ready to replace them.


If the option E were this :-

Quote:
(E) Computer-industry analysts believed after the SuperComp campaign began that most consumers who already owned home computers were not yet ready to replace them.


Would it be correct answer choice then ??


Note that this cannot be the belief of the analysts AFTER the campaign because already super comp would have seen dramatic increase in sales.
You can hold a belief for future but when the results are already in front of you, how can you still believe something that goes against the result?
Even if the increased sale comes from first time buyers, there could be many more such people.

We need something that says that the campaign may not be having the desired impact, something that gives us a shortcoming of the campaign. So (E) cannot work.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 2560
To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2019, 23:38
1
mallya12 wrote:
VeritasPrepBrian

Thank you for all the helpful information.

Well just one doubt, The official Answer posted here tells that "Analysts doubt that SuperComp's plan for selling this computers for home use is really working"

mallya12 ,
I think that a response will not make sense until the conclusion is clear. I think you got really turned around.

It is easy to get turned around.

Reason backwards in this question. Your assertions do not reason backwards. You keep starting with everything except the conclusion.
Quote:
What I thought is Super Comps plans are successful but their success is attributed to their marketing plans(Advertisement) and not because of the dealers.

In short sales of super comps was high- reason: because of marketing and not because of the dealers.

No. Sales of Supercomp computers cannot have been high.

Just because the plan was supposed to produce increased Supercomp sales does not mean that the plan worked.

If Supercomp sales had been high, why would analysts think that Supercomp's marketing failed?

Reason backwards.

Start with what the analysts think.

Read really carefully.

Fact: Supercomp convinced some computer dealers to sell Supercomp's home computers.

Fact: These dealers may have carried other brands. We are told nothing.

Fact: Supercomp ran a big marketing campaign.

Fact: Dealers' sales of computers GENERALLY increased significantly.

Problem #1: we do not know whether the increased sales came from the purchase of HOME computers, office computers, car computers, spaceship computers, etc.

The words say only that dealers achieved dramatically increased sales of computers last month. The words do NOT say "dramatically increased sales of HOME computers."

Problem #2: even if the entire sales increase was created by more sales of home computers (the kind that Supercomp makes), we are NEVER told whether the dealers actually sold any Supercomp computers.

We think about these problems when we see the conclusion that

analysts doubt that the marketing plan is bringing SuperComp the desired success.

Why would analysts doubt? Because Supercomp's sales went UP? No.
Why do analysts doubt? What must they be looking at? Bad sales numbers.

Again: Analysts doubt that the marketing plan worked because Supercomp's sales did NOT increase even during a general rise in computer sales.

Marketing Plan success = increased sales
If MP, then increased sales.
If X, then Y.

Contraposition (valid!) (Reasoning backwards)

If not Y, then not X.
If no increased sales?
Then marketing plan was NOT successful.

Stated differently: If the marketing plan had been successful, Supercomp would have increased its sales.

There is exactly one reason, in other words, for the analysts to doubt that Supercomp's marketing plan worked.

The one reason is that Supercomp's computer sales did not go up.

Quote:
I guess I am misinterpreting the conclusion(whatever I am describing is contradicting to the official explanation i.e the sales of super comps is not high)

Could you please clarify this.

I hope that I clarified what seems to be a lot of confusion about the conclusion here.

Analysts think that the marketing plan failed because Supercomp's sales were low.

Now we have to find the answer that supports the analysts' doubt.

Something is wrong.

Sales of computers generally increased significantly.

But analysts think that Supercomp's marketing plan did not work. Supercomp should have had high sales.

Analysts doubt that the "increase sales" marketing plan worked almost certainly because sales of Supercomp home computers were NOT high, were NOT a big part of the increase.

Why would dealers sell very few Supercomp computers at the same time that dealers are selling a lot more computers generally?

(1) Something is wrong with Supercomp's computers compared to other brands' computers. In a retail market sense, something is wrong.

Maybe:
-- Supercomp computers cost too much compared to other brands' computers
-- Supercomp computers gave dealers a smaller profit margin than other brands' computers did
-- Other brands offered both buyer and seller incentives that Supercomp did not offer

Or
maybe
(2) the increase in sales of "computers" was NOT an increase in sales of home computers.

Only one answer fits.

Option C gives us what we need to support what the analysts believe.

(C) SuperComp’s dealers also sell other brands of computers that are very similar to SuperComp’s but less expensive and that afford the dealers a significantly higher markup.

Break it down

SuperComp’s dealers also sell OTHER brands of computers
-- the dealers do not sell only Supercomp computers.
-- the dealers sell OTHER brands' computers and the dealers sell Supercomp's computers

[The other brands' computers] are very similar to SuperComp’s

OTHER brands' computers = same quality as Supercomp's computers

. . . but [the other brands' computers are] less expensive than Supercomp's computers.

Same quality, lower price?
Inference: consumers bought lots of the OTHER brands' computers

... and [the other brands' computers] afford the dealers a significantly higher markup.
Another inference: DEALERS have more incentive to sell OTHER brands' computers more than dealers have to sell Supercomp's computers.

Consumers paid less for, and bought more of, OTHER brands' computers.

Dealers made more on, and wanted to sell more of, OTHER brands' computers.

Bottom line: Supercomp did not sell a lot of computers even though computer sales rose dramatically.

Supercomp could not compete.

Supercomp sold very few computers, despite its marketing plan, because it couldn't compete.
Supercomp had no increase in sales.
THAT fact is why analysts doubt that the marketing plan worked. The marketing plan was supposed to increase sales. It did not do so.

The answer is C.

Hope that helps.
_________________

And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you
because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places.
Those who don't believe in magic will never find it
.
—Roald Dahl

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 116
Re: To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Feb 2019, 09:12
1
generis wrote:
mallya12 wrote:
VeritasPrepBrian

Thank you for all the helpful information.

Well just one doubt, The official Answer posted here tells that "Analysts doubt that SuperComp's plan for selling this computers for home use is really working"

mallya12 ,
I think that a response will not make sense until the conclusion is clear. I think you got really turned around.

It is easy to get turned around.

Reason backwards in this question. Your assertions do not reason backwards. You keep starting with everything except the conclusion.
Quote:
What I thought is Super Comps plans are successful but their success is attributed to their marketing plans(Advertisement) and not because of the dealers.

In short sales of super comps was high- reason: because of marketing and not because of the dealers.

No. Sales of Supercomp computers cannot have been high.

Just because the plan was supposed to produce increased Supercomp sales does not mean that the plan worked.

If Supercomp sales had been high, why would analysts think that Supercomp's marketing failed?

Reason backwards.

Start with what the analysts think.

Read really carefully.

Fact: Supercomp convinced some computer dealers to sell Supercomp's home computers.

Fact: These dealers may have carried other brands. We are told nothing.

Fact: Supercomp ran a big marketing campaign.

Fact: Dealers' sales of computers GENERALLY increased significantly.

Problem #1: we do not know whether the increased sales came from the purchase of HOME computers, office computers, car computers, spaceship computers, etc.

The words say only that dealers achieved dramatically increased sales of computers last month. The words do NOT say "dramatically increased sales of HOME computers."

Problem #2: even if the entire sales increase was created by more sales of home computers (the kind that Supercomp makes), we are NEVER told whether the dealers actually sold any Supercomp computers.

We think about these problems when we see the conclusion that

analysts doubt that the marketing plan is bringing SuperComp the desired success.

Why would analysts doubt? Because Supercomp's sales went UP? No.
Why do analysts doubt? What must they be looking at? Bad sales numbers.

Again: Analysts doubt that the marketing plan worked because Supercomp's sales did NOT increase even during a general rise in computer sales.

Marketing Plan success = increased sales
If MP, then increased sales.
If X, then Y.

Contraposition (valid!) (Reasoning backwards)

If not Y, then not X.
If no increased sales?
Then marketing plan was NOT successful.

Stated differently: If the marketing plan had been successful, Supercomp would have increased its sales.

There is exactly one reason, in other words, for the analysts to doubt that Supercomp's marketing plan worked.

The one reason is that Supercomp's computer sales did not go up.

Quote:
I guess I am misinterpreting the conclusion(whatever I am describing is contradicting to the official explanation i.e the sales of super comps is not high)

Could you please clarify this.

I hope that I clarified what seems to be a lot of confusion about the conclusion here.

Analysts think that the marketing plan failed because Supercomp's sales were low.

Now we have to find the answer that supports the analysts' doubt.

Something is wrong.

Sales of computers generally increased significantly.

But analysts think that Supercomp's marketing plan did not work. Supercomp should have had high sales.

Analysts doubt that the "increase sales" marketing plan worked almost certainly because sales of Supercomp home computers were NOT high, were NOT a big part of the increase.

Why would dealers sell very few Supercomp computers at the same time that dealers are selling a lot more computers generally?

(1) Something is wrong with Supercomp's computers compared to other brands' computers. In a retail market sense, something is wrong.

Maybe:
-- Supercomp computers cost too much compared to other brands' computers
-- Supercomp computers gave dealers a smaller profit margin than other brands' computers did
-- Other brands offered both buyer and seller incentives that Supercomp did not offer

Or
maybe
(2) the increase in sales of "computers" was NOT an increase in sales of home computers.

Only one answer fits.

Option C gives us what we need to support what the analysts believe.

(C) SuperComp’s dealers also sell other brands of computers that are very similar to SuperComp’s but less expensive and that afford the dealers a significantly higher markup.

Break it down

SuperComp’s dealers also sell OTHER brands of computers
-- the dealers do not sell only Supercomp computers.
-- the dealers sell OTHER brands' computers and the dealers sell Supercomp's computers

[The other brands' computers] are very similar to SuperComp’s

OTHER brands' computers = same quality as Supercomp's computers

. . . but [the other brands' computers are] less expensive than Supercomp's computers.

Same quality, lower price?
Inference: consumers bought lots of the OTHER brands' computers

... and [the other brands' computers] afford the dealers a significantly higher markup.
Another inference: DEALERS have more incentive to sell OTHER brands' computers more than dealers have to sell Supercomp's computers.

Consumers paid less for, and bought more of, OTHER brands' computers.

Dealers made more on, and wanted to sell more of, OTHER brands' computers.

Bottom line: Supercomp did not sell a lot of computers even though computer sales rose dramatically.

Supercomp could not compete.

Supercomp sold very few computers, despite its marketing plan, because it couldn't compete.
Supercomp had no increase in sales.
THAT fact is why analysts doubt that the marketing plan worked. The marketing plan was supposed to increase sales. It did not do so.

The answer is C.

Hope that helps.



Thanks a lot! Very nicely explained :)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use   [#permalink] 22 Feb 2019, 09:12

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 24 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.