It is commonly held among marketing experts that in a nonexpanding mar

Question

It is commonly held among marketing experts that in a nonexpanding market a company’s best strategy is to go after a bigger share of the market and that the best way to do this is to run comparative advertisements that emphasize weaknesses in the products of rivals. In the stagnant market for food oil, soybean-oil and palm-oil producers did wage a two-year battle with comparative advertisements about the deleterious effect on health of each other’s products. These campaigns, however, had little effect on respective market shares; rather, they stopped many people from buying any edible oils at all.

The statements above most strongly support the conclusion that comparative advertisements

(A) increase a company’s market share in all cases in which that company’s products are clearly superior to the products of rivals

(B) should not be used in a market that is expanding or likely to expand

(C) should under no circumstances be used as a retaliatory measure

(D) carry the risk of causing a contraction of the market at which they are aimed

(E) yield no long-term gains unless consumers can easily verify the claims made

ConnectTheDots · Answer

4. In the edible oil example, the market contraction resulted.

anje29 · Answer

Hi,
Please post the answer . IMO answer is D as from passage contraction of market is shown which is a risk not desired consequence.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

It is commonly held among marketing experts that in a nonexpanding market a company's best strategy is to go after abigger share of the market and that the best way to do this is to run comparative advertisements that emphasize weaknesses in the product of rivals. In the stagnant market of food oil, soyabean oil and palm-oil producers did wage a two year battle with comparative advertisements about the deleterious effect on health of each other's products. These campaigns, however, had little effect on respective market shares; rather, they stopped many people from buying any edible oils at all.

The statements above most strongly support the conclusion that comparative advertisements.

1. increase a company's market share in all cases in which that company's products are clearly superior to the products of rivals.
2. should not be used in a market that is expanding or likely to expand.
3. should under no ccircumstances be used as a retaliatory measure.
 4. carry the risk of causing a contraction of the market at which they are aimed. 
5. yield no long-term gains unless consumers can easily verify the claims made

NOT A STRENGTHENING QUESTION BUT AN INFERENCE QUESTION.

goforgmat · Answer

IMO C is a better answer.
we cant infer that the market decreased. the market shares of respective oil companies might have decreased.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

It is commonly held among marketing experts that in a nonexpanding mar

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It is commonly held among marketing experts that in a nonexpanding mar

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards