Super Express Shipping Company has implemented a new distribution

The argument is that the new system will make customers prefer regular '2-day delivery' to premium 'next-day delivery' because the regular delivery takes one day anyways. They want to solve this by making sure regular delivery does not take one day. The main assumption of this argument is that people pick their service because of the one-day timeline, and not because of other reasons. A weaker assumption is that causing a delay in supply will not affect sales (this requires that potential customers know about the delay). As we know what to look for, we can look for it without pausing to think about each individual answer. This is a Precise approach.

Going over the options, (A) is exactly what we expect and is our answer.

How C is wrong ?


Could you help to understand that .

Posted from my mobile device

i chose wrong answer c...

how do we negate c? C. if the plan is implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system?

This would weaken the argument, right?

I don't understand why B is not an assumption here.

The passage states that "The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service, because its two-day service will usually arrive the following day anyway."

It must be true that people don't care whether their delivery arrive in one-day or two-day. That's why the company is concerned that people will choose not to use the premium service.

If people prefer one-day delivery to two-day, the company then won't have to worry about because the improvement won't affect the sales of its premium service.

Can anyone explain why B is not an assumption?

B. most people do NOT have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery
!B = most people DO have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery

Even if most people DO have a preference, Can we be SURE that the preference is for two-day delivery, NOT next-day delivery?
The true-GMAT options are supposed to be misleading, making the aspirant choose the favorability in the sea of ambiguity.

Let's say -

Case 1:

most people DO have a preference for two-day delivery.
The sales of the premium service will be negatively impacted substantially. - Weakener


Case 2:

most people DO have a preference for next-day delivery.
The sales of the premium service will NOT be impacted substantially; in fact, the sales of the premium service will enhance. - Strengthener

The meaning can sway in both the directions: either BETTER or WORSE

Any answer choice which can sway in both the directions is NEVER going to be the correct answer.
The impact of B is dicey at best. Thus, OUT.

Looking carefully, "C" is talking about profit. It is essentially saying that the lost of sales in overnight deliveries will be too high to be offset by the saving in cost from new distribution system.

But the goal in the argument is to ensure that revenue won't go down. So the cost saving from new distribution system is not in the equation yet.

At least, this is what I think

My two cents' worth here:

These questions usually fall under what would be called "They have a plan" questions, and the questions always almost follow the same pattern.

Someone will propose a certain course of action (here as " intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages") and outlines a pretty specific aim of that course of action (here "encourage sales of its next-day service"). The right answer will almost always be directly related to the specific aim of the plan, which tells us that's the part of the question we should zoom in on.

Here, we're looking for an assumption - which can appear in the form of a linking connector, or a defending statement that indeed tells us that the customers will buy his premium 1-day service.

The author's line of reasoning is to drive 'traffic' or sales to the premium 1-day overnight delivery plan by holding things up on their 'normal' 2-day delivery plans, EVEN THOUGH internally they have developed the same synergistic capability (their distribution system) to deliver either within 1 or 2 days. Try to personalize this argument as if you were the owner of the business:

1. I'm going to hold things up for my customers on the 2-day deliveries, even though I can almost always definitely deliver within 2 days.
2. Since 2-day deliveries are on hold up, customers will turn to my 1-day delivery service.

Missing connect: What if the customers are not happy already in the first place that their goods are being held up? What if they switch at that point? Then my 2-day deliveries would NEVER have the chance to even work.

This whole argument about driving traffic from 1 plan to the other assumes that the customers will behave as he predicts them to be. But he's missing the point in that there is a potential possibility they would not even give him the opportunity to sell his 1-day premium delivery service.

Hence, we have Option A which appears in the form of a defending assumption which tells us that the above stated possibility will not happen.

I was trying negation technique.

In option C, We say Company would loose more money on premium than thay save on New technology. hence new they should intentionally delay to retain premium customer .What ios wrong in this ?

ALso in option A why we are worrying about company image if we are comparing sales number ?

Hi Akshay

(C) gives us a probable reason to support the implementation of the plan. However, the question is somewhat different - the question asks us to identify that answer option which, if true, would support the reasoning and the conclusion presented in the question stimulus. An alternate reasoning that supports the same conclusion does not necessarily support the reasoning and conclusion that we are assessing.

For example, consider the following argument:

i) India should reduce its usage of fossil fuels in order to combat global climate change.

Now, let us consider an alternate reason for the same conclusion presented above:

ii) India should reduce its usage of fossil fuels as that will reduce its import bill, thereby strengthening its currency

While (ii) presents a different rationale than (i) for the same argument (that India should reduce its usage of fossil fuels), neither can be considered an underlying assumption for the other.

To address your second question, in (A), we are not only considering the company's image on a standalone basis. We are considering damage to the company's image that "significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers". If the image of the company is so impacted, that will clearly result in reduced sales numbers, potentially offsetting any savings made by the plan to delay regular shipments to preserve the privilege of premium customers. (A) states that such damage will not occur, which clearly is an underlying assumption for the reasoning presented for the plan in the question stimulus.

Hope this clarifies.

Argument -
New service = new system that can deliver a package in a single day. Traditional service = 2 days.
Effect of new service = decreased sales of premium service.
Company plan = intentionally delay service to improve the sales of premium service

Why wont the plan work - may be the delay affects the premium service in someway

(A) deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers
- If the delay affects the company's image --> it ultimately affects the premium service customers
- Correct

(B) most people do not have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery
- Analyse this option without negating it.
- If people do not have a preference then implementation of the plan itself will not yield any benefit
- Wrong

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system
- We need to analyse the situation considering that the plan is implemented. There can be numerous such hypothetical situations which can benefit or harm the plan.
- Wrong

(D) the overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently
- If the overnight service is too costly, there is a high possibility that there are already very few people opting for that plan and that number is not going to change much after implementation of the intentional delay. Thus the delay will not affect the premium service in any way.
- Wrong

(E) competing companies' delivery services rarely deliver packages to their destination earlier than their promised time
- Irrelevant

Passage Analysis

• Super Express Shipping Company has implemented a new distribution system

o The company named Super Express Shipping Company has brought into action a new system for the distribution of packages it should deliver.
• that can get almost every package to its destination the day after it is sent.

o This new distribution system can make nearly all the packages reach the destination the next day itself.

• The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service, because its two-day service will usually arrive the following day anyway.

o The company is concerned whether this new system, which is more efficient than what was previously followed, lead to reduced sales of its premium next day delivery service.
o The two day service packages usually arrive the second day, which can be speeded up with the new efficient system. We can infer that this situation will make the premium next-day delivery service irrelevant.

• The company plans to encourage sales of its next-day service by intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages

o The company intends to delay the delivery of its two-day packages purposefully.
o Thus, they plan to encourage the sales of the next day service.

• so that they will not be delivered the following day, even if the package arrives at its destination city in time for next-day delivery.

o According to the plan, the packages meant for two-days delivery will not be delivered the next day after it is sent, even if they reach the city of the recipient early enough.

Conclusion (by the company): Intentionally delaying delivery of the company’s two-day packages will encourage sales of its next-day delivery service.

Question Stem Analysis
This question asks us to identify the assumption behind the company’s plan.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Question
In what scenario is it possible that intentionally delaying delivery of the company’s two-day packages will not encourage sales of its next-day delivery service?.
Given that

•Company has implemented a new distribution system that can get almost every package to its destination the day after it is sent.
•The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service.

Thought Process
The company has chosen a plan to intentionally delay its two-day delivery service in order to encourage the sales of its overnight delivery service. This plan will work if a significant number of customers are specific about their requirement of overnight delivery. The success of the plan also depends on whether the information regarding intentional delay repel customers from choosing the company’s services.

Falsification condition #1
What if the customers happen to know about this plan and the company loses its goodwill among the customers? This will not encourage the sales of their premium service. In that case, the company’s conclusion breaks down.
Assumption#1
The intentional delay will not lead to the company losing its goodwill amongst its customer base, affecting its ability to garner new customers for the premium service.

Falsification condition#2
What if not many customers require overnight service? In that case. vast majority of the customers will continue to choose two-day service even if the plan is implemented. Here too, the conclusion cannot hold.
Assumption#2
A significant number of customers require overnight delivery and will choose premium service if the plan is implemented.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers
CORRECT
This statement is in line with our assumption 1, and hence forms the correct answer choice.

(B) most people do not have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery
INCORRECT
This option negates our pre-thinking assumption 2. We need to assume there is a customer base who will pay more for next day delivery. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system
INCORRECT
We have no reason to assume that the plan chosen by the company is the best plan, or the only plan, possible. Such an assumption does not affect the chosen plan to deliver the required result anyway. Hence this is a wrong choice.

D) the overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently
INCORRECT
Such an assumption is not required for the conclusion to hold. What more than 50% of the current customers feel regarding the price of the overnight service is not a decisive factor for the company’s conclusion to hold.

(E) competing companies' delivery services rarely deliver packages to their destination earlier than their promised time
INCORRECT.
This statement is completely out of the scope of the passage as what competing companies do does not affect the plan followed by the company to promote its premium service. Thus, this is an incorrect choice.

The correct answer if option (A).

Passage Understanding:
1. The company has at least 2 types of delivery services - Regular and Next Day Delivery (NDD - this is premium).
2. Regular delivery takes 2 days. NDD takes 1 day.
3. The company has introduced a new distribution system. This can ensure that almost every package is delivered on the next day.
4. The company's worry is that this system will result in lower sales of NDD, because even in regular delivery, without paying a premium, the customer is getting their item delivered in 1 day, instead of 2.
5. Keeping this in mind, the company has made a plan -

Objective: to encourage sales of NDD
Plan: Intentionally delay delivery by 1 day for regular delivery (with the new distribution system), to ensure delivery happens on the 2nd day, and not the 1st day (which will make it same as NDD for cheaper).

We need to find the assumption.

Thought Process:

An assumption is that implicit thought which is not stated, but has to be true for the conclusion to hold true. So, if an assumption is not true (negated), then the conclusion should break. A failsafe way to identify the assumptions is to identify the conditions under which the conclusion would definitely break.

So, let us falsify or break the conclusion:

In what scenario would the company's plan (to delay regular delivery by a day) NOT help improve the sales of NDD?

We need to think about how an intentional delay can impact sales of NDD.

What if this intentional delay somehow impacted the company's brand image negatively? For example, what if the media or customers found out about the company intentionally delaying deliveries, and created negative publicity, to such a level that customers moved to other companies for deliveries?

This would impact both the delivery services (regular and NDD). But the plan would have failed. NDD Sales would suffer.

So one assumption being made is: The information about intentional delay didn't reach the customers and drive them away from the company in any way.


Let us go through the answer choices:

(A) deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers

This is exactly what we arrived at. This must be the correct answer.

(B) most people do not have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery


This plan aims to build a preference for one day delivery, so that more customers will pay a premium for it. This option only states that most of the current customers don't really prefer NDD over regular, as they have no preference of one over the other. This is precisely what the plan hopes to solve - bring more customers onboard NDD (i.e. pay premium for NDD). So, this option has no impact on the conclusion. In some ways, it is the basis for the plan.

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system

Interesting choice! But not correct. It is simply telling us why the plan should be implemented, but the conclusion is whether the plan when implemented would succeed or fail. And an assumption in such a case would be that statement which has to be true for the plan to succeed. Why the plan should be implemented is irrelevant here.

(D) the overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently
Irrelevant. It is not clear how overnight service and its pricing is anyway related to the plan of intentional delay.

(E) competing companies' delivery services rarely deliver packages to their destination earlier than their promised time
Irrelevant. Competitor's delivery time has nothing to do with whether the company's plan to delay deliveries will push more customers towards NDD.

Cheers!

The customer doesn't know whether it is deliberate delay or not.
The customer is anyways expecting the delivery in 2 days and the company is doing that. How will it affect the company's image?

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja CrackVerbalGMAT

Company has implemented a new efficient system.
Two day delivery will take one day only.
So one day delivery premium will suffer.

Plan: Delay the delivery of two day shipping so that premium one day delivery sales gets encouraged.

Which of the following is an assumption?

The company's plan assumes that

(A) deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers


Is it an assumption that deliberate delaying will not adversely affect business? It is.

Negate (A): deliberate delay of packages will affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers
sudeshpatodiya
It doesn't matter whether you think this is possible or not. Focus on what happens given that this happens.
If this were true, will the plan work? No. The plan will certainly fail. How will the customers come to know about the deliberate delay - we don't have to worry. Perhaps the employees will spread the word. We don't know.
All we have to worry about is if it were to happen, what will happen to our plan.

(B) most people do not have a preference for either two-day or next-day delivery

We are not assuming this. In fact, we are assuming that next day delivery is valuable. That people pay for next day deliveries. We want to maintain the revenue we get from next day deliveries.

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system

Not as assumption. In fact, the new system must have been implemented because overall it is better for the company - saves costs or increases revenues. It has a negative impact on sale of premium one day service and that is what the plan is trying to rectify. If the plan is not implemented, lost money may not be (in fact, will likely not be) more than saved money.

(D) the overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently

Incorrect. It seems that the overnight service is attractive to customers.

(E) competing companies' delivery services rarely deliver packages to their destination earlier than their promised time

We know that currently customer pay for one day delivery. We are trying to retain that business. We are not assuming anything about competitors.

Answer (A)


yatindra20

Let me explain why C is wrong.

First, I believe that the following modified version would be a correct assumption:

If the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would gain in increased sales of its two-day service

If I negate the above option, I get

If the plan is not implemented, the company would lose money in lost sales of overnight deliveries less than or the same as it would gain in increased sales of its two-day service

In this case, the company is not at a disadvantage by not implementing the plan. Thus, there's no reason to implement the plan.

**********

Now, coming back to the original option C.

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system

This option is comparing the money lost in reduced sales of overnight deliveries AND the money saved with its new efficient distribution system.

However, this comparison is NOT relevant since, in our plan, we're not getting rid of the new efficient distribution system. We're using the efficient system; just that we're delaying the deliveries. Thus, we'll save money from the efficient distribution system even in our plan (the first statement says that we've already implemented this new system and there's no discussion of dropping this system).

If our plan included discarding this efficient distribution system, then this option could be the answer. However, right now, this option is not correct.

Does it make sense?

ThatDudeKnows egmat GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep What is choice D doing here and why is it wrong . ALso not clear about C

Let's start with (C).

(C) if the plan is not implemented, the company would lose more money in lost sales of overnight deliveries than it would save with its new efficient distribution system.

Notice that the goal of the plan is simply "to encourage sales of its next-day service." In other words, the company's goal is to ensure that it won't lose REVENUE because it's able to deliver two-day packages in one day. The company does not have to assume anything about how much it saves on EXPENSES with its new distribution system to arrive a conclusion about how to maximize revenue. So, the company is not assuming (C).

Now, here's (D).

(D) the overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently

This choice has the vibe of explaining why the company would want to delay delivery of two-day packages rather than deliver them in one day. After all, if the company were to deliver the two-day packages in one day, then it's likely that people would use the two-day service because overnight delivery is more expensive. So, the company is assuming that customers take expense into account.

However, notice that the fact idea that customers want to save on expenses is not the same as the idea that the overnight service is "too expensive" for customers. The overnight service does not have to be "too expensive" for customers in order for it to make sense to believe that customers will use the two-day service to save on expenses if they can. So, the company does not have to assume that the overnight service is "too expensive" for most customers in order to conclude that the plan of delaying delivery of the two-day packages makes sense.