Over the last three years, Saticoy Industries has seen nearly a 50% de

Question

Over the last three years, Saticoy Industries has seen nearly a 50% decrease in revenue from its website. In an effort to increase its single-visit conversion rate, the percentage of site visits that result in a purchase, Saticoy is redesigning its website so that users will never have to scroll in order to reach a checkout link, a redesign that will reduce the number of words on each page by over 60%.

Which of the following is a reason to believe that Saticoy's plan will not reach its goals?

A) The primary reason for Saticoy's sales decline is a dramatic decrease in the number of visitors to its website each month.

B) Respondents to a recent industry survey cited Saticoy's high prices, compared to its competitors, as the most common reason that they left the site without making a purchase.

C) The decline in Saticoy's single-visit conversion rate has been more severe for mobile visitors than for desktop visitors.

D) Saticoy's primary differentiating feature in the marketplace is its detailed descriptions of products.

E) Two of Saticoy's closest competitors have recently seen their website redesigns result in significantly reduced page traffic

aragonn · Accepted Answer

premise:  SI facing decrease of revenue from its website. 
 Conclusion :  So they redesigning the website, such a way that that users will never have to scroll in order to reach a checkout link. this means previously checkout link was very down the page. 
 Approach of redesign  : reduce the number of words on each page by over 60%.

What to achieve? :  Saticoy's plan will not reach its goals. means it will not achieve increase of revenue from its website.

Which of the following is a reason to believe that Saticoy's plan will not reach its goals?

A)The primary reason for Saticoy's sales decline is a dramatic decrease in the number of visitors to its website each month.--- may be user will increase may be not, may be user will increase but they will not checkout. too much to assume here for this choice to be true.
B)Respondents to a recent industry survey cited Saticoy's high prices, compared to its competitors, as the most common reason that they left the site without making a purchase. ---- previously S has high prices, and this has not changes yet. could be the answer. definitely better then A. 
C)The decline in Saticoy's single-visit conversion rate has been more severe for mobile visitors than for desktop visitors. ---- mobile vs desktop was never the issue for us.
D)Saticoy's primary differentiating feature in the marketplace is its detailed descriptions of products. ---- if this is really an impressive thing then ppl would have some and purchase even before redesigning. now also it will happen in the same manner. means S need to make something else as primary differentiating feature. 
E)Two of Saticoy's closest competitors have recently seen their website redesigns result in significantly reduced page traffic --- this has nothing to do with

So B and D both can be the answer in first go. lets try to eliminate one. What was the goal again. let see the following line again "In an effort to increase its single-visit conversion rate" So goal is increase conversion rate. if people come to site for detail description and by removing so much text, it removed its USP, conversion rate will decrease not increase, cause it is the main cause for the sale. While in B, well price is already high. redesign will not impact as everyone know about it.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

A critical theme with Plan/Strategy Critical Reasoning questions is that the goal is the key issue (much like the conclusion in a standard Strengthen/Weaken argument). You must pay attention to the specific goal of the plan, which here is:

In an effort to increase its single-visit conversion rate, the percentage of site visits that result in a purchase...

Note that the goal is not to increase sales, or page traffic, or anything else. The goal is specific to conversion rate. This is why choices A and E, each of which deals with overall page traffic - number of visits - but not with conversion rate, are incorrect.

Recognize, also, that "a better plan does not weaken this plan" - another common theme with Plan/Strategy questions. Choice B fits that mold: while a better plan might be to reduce prices, that doesn't mean that this plan can't also help to increase (even if modestly so) conversion rate.

Choice C is incorrect in that it only sheds more light on the statistics in the premise but doesn't offer a reason why this plan wouldn't work. If it's tempting to you, it likely goes back to your desire for "a better plan" (e.g. a plan that emphasizes mobile conversion rate).

Choice D is correct, as it gives a reason that the plan might not work: if Saticoy reduces the amount of text on each page, it may be losing one of its main selling points, which is its detailed product descriptions - a big driver of Saticoy sales is the very text that it is looking to remove.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

SI has seen a decline in website revenue in last 3 yrs.
Plan: Redesign website - 'No need to scroll' and 'reduce number of words on each page by 60%'
Target: Increase % of website visits that result in purchase

Mind you, the target is that percentage of visits that result in purchase should increase. So if 20% visits result in purchase right now, it should go up to say 25%. 
What says that the target will not be achieved?

A) The primary reason for Saticoy's sales decline is a dramatic decrease in the number of visitors to its website each month.

Irrelevant. How many people are actually visiting the website is irrelevant. We want to increase the conversion rate (the percentage of visits that result in purchase).

B) Respondents to a recent industry survey cited Saticoy's high prices, compared to its competitors, as the most common reason that they left the site without making a purchase.

This is a factor that was present, is present and is not being changed in our plan. Our plan is trying to address some other issues - reduce scrolling and word count. 
Just because we are not addressing one factor, does not mean addressing other factors will not have any impact. Say 60% people leave the site because of high prices. But 10% leave because the site is too tiresome. The redesigning may encourage these 10% to purchase and hence we might see an increase in % of visits that result in purchase.
So this does not give us a reason why our plan may not work.

C) The decline in Saticoy's single-visit conversion rate has been more severe for mobile visitors than for desktop visitors.

Irrelevant. We don't know how redesigning impacts either.

D) Saticoy's primary differentiating feature in the marketplace is its detailed descriptions of products.

Correct. A USP of SI is its detailed descriptions of products - it is what differentiates SI from its competitors (a differentiator is why people prefer to buy a certain product over other similar products). If we reduce the word count by 60%, it may actually lead to decrease in conversion rate. The website redesigning may have negative impact and hence may not meet its target.

E) Two of Saticoy's closest competitors have recently seen their website redesigns result in significantly reduced page traffic

We have no idea how the competitors redesigned the website and what kind of changes they made. Irrelevant.

Answer (D)

AaronPond · Answer

Okay, let's take this baby down. Many of the responses in this forum focus on isolated pieces of this question, but I think it might be beneficial to do a full analysis, focusing on the critical-thinking strategies that unlock problems like these. As you study for the GMAT, it is very beneficial to identify patterns and strategies useful for multiple questions, not just one. Here is the full "GMAT Jujitsu" for this question:

Our first item of business is to recognize the problem type. The question stem asks for a reason why " Saticoy's plan will not reach its goals ." While this sounds like a traditional "  Weaken  " question, it is a weaken question with a twist: instead of weakening a  conclusion , we are weakening a  plan . This changes our strategy a little bit.

There is a large logical gap here, related to the fallacy "  Correlation is Not Causation  ." Even though Saticoy Industries wants to increase its "single-visit conversion rate," there is no evidence that redesigning its website by reducing the number of words on a page will affect this rate. (For example, what if nobody cares where the check-out link is? There is no way to tell given the limited facts in the question!) If we can find an answer that shows such a change won't affect the single-visit conversion rate, we have our answer. Let's analyze each answer choice.

Answer choice “ A ” doesn't focus on the correct logical gap. We are trying to find an answer that weakens the link between reducing webpage content and single-visit conversion rate. "Number of visitors" is not the same thing. “ A ” can be easily eliminated.

Answer choice “ B ” is a beautifully crafted trap. It baits you into focusing on the wrong thing, a logical fallacy I call in my classes a "  Distracting Detour  ." It's kind of like "moving the goalposts." While “ B ” indicates that Saticoy's high prices affect whether a customer will make a purchase, our job in this problem is to focus on the apparent logical disconnect between reducing the number of words on a webpage and the single-visit conversion rate. Think about it: even if price DOES negatively affect whether a customer will purchase an item, is it possible that reducing website content would still INCREASE the single-visit conversion rate? In fact, if you think about it, with a "single visit" it is possible that visitors to Saticoy's website might not even be  aware  of price differences across the market. Hinting that an alternative plan might do a  better  job (such as reducing prices) still doesn't logically undermine the existing plan. You need to focus on the correct logical gap. (Incidentally, the "  better-plan-doesn't-weaken-the-existing-plan  " fallacy is a common trap in Plan/Strategy questions on the GMAT.)

Answer choice “ C ” contains interesting context, but doesn't undermine the logical gap. This one is also easy to eliminate.

Now, at first glance, answer choice “ D ” is a   weak sauce   answer. We technically don't know if the proposed 60% content reduction even affects the detailed description of Saticoy's products. However -- and this is crucial for those of you taking the GMAT -- "  Strengthen  " and "  Weaken  " questions on the GMAT aren't "  Unequivocally Prove  " or "  Annihilate the Logic  " questions. Answer choice “ D ”  does  indicate that the proposed plan could have problems, since (1) detailed product descriptions Saticoy's are differentiating feature and (2) the proposed change could potentially eliminate that feature. If all of the other answer choices fail to focus on the assumed causal link between reducing the number of words on a webpage and the single-visit conversion rate, then this answer -- as weak as it is -- still works. I naturally want something stronger. If this question showed up on my GMAT, I would reserve judgement on “ D ” until I looked at the other answer choices.

Answer choice “ E ” is also completely irrelevant to the logical gap. Reduced "  page traffic  " is not the same thing as "  single-visit conversion rate  ." Additionally, it never tells us HOW Saticoy's competitors redesigned their websites. The redesigns could have been simply changes in color schemes! “ E ” doesn't focus on the right thing. We can quickly eliminate it.

In the end, only one answer choice even gets us close to undermining the assumed causal link between reducing the number of words on a webpage and the single-visit conversion rate. Four of the five answer choices focus on something other than the logical gap. They can be eliminated. Only one answer is left over. And it is total weak sauce. This is what I call in my classes a "  Directional Nudge  ." With Strengthen and Weaken questions, test takers often look for an answer so perfect that Aristotle himself rises from the grave and gives them a round of applause. But that approach is a deliberate trap in many GMAT questions. Don't fall for it. You just need the answer choice that correctly "  Minds the Gap  " in the best possible way. And "  D  " is the only one that does the job.

JakeRockwell · Answer

It is either B) or D)

Not B) because the scenario listed in B) can still lead to an increase in conversion rate.Please note that the words "the most common reason" is NOT THE SAME AS "the only reason".

D) is correct though there could have been a better answer.For D) to be correct we have to assume that reducing 60% of the words leads to a reduction in description.Now how far is that a straightforward assumption I do not know. Some moderator please chip in.....

sid0791 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

I have a doubt about this.

According to the explanation on Veritas-

Choice D is correct, as it gives a reason that the plan might not work: if Saticoy reduces the amount of text on each page, it may be losing one of its main selling points, which is its detailed product descriptions - a big driver of Saticoy sales is the very text that it is looking to remove.

But my doubt is, according to the argument they are reducing the number of words on each page by over 60%, But it never say that they are reducing product description, they might be reducing something else, thus it wouldn't necessarly weaken the argument.

In B- (According to veritas)-

Choice B fits that mold: while a better plan might be to reduce prices, that doesn't mean that this plan can't also help to increase (even if modestly so) conversion rate.

Although you can get better hits on the website but that won't confirm whether your conversation rate would be better or not, because if primary reason for decreasing revenue is because of high prices and it also mentions that "as the most common reason that they left the site without making a purchase", thus even if we enhance the website there should be no increase in the conversation rate.

Can you please help me to understand, why exactly B is wrong and D is right? And where my understanding is lacking, as according to above, D is not necessarly weaking it and B provides us a solid point to weaken the plan

Thanks, would be waiting for your reply.

Thanks & Regards
Siddharth

KarishmaB · Answer

Higher prices are the most common reason, not the only reason.

If today the conversion rate is only 20%, it doesn't mean that 80% people do not buy because of pricing. Perhaps 60% people do not buy because of pricing, 10% do not buy because of specifications and 10% do not buy because the website is too tiresome.
The plan is to make the website more attractive by reducing word count by 60% etc. We need to say why this plan may not work. There could be various reasons:
1. There are no people who do not buy because of the tiresome website.
2. Even if some people find the new website better, the current website is what attracts some people and reducing word count may actually eat into the 20% number.

Point 2 is what option (D) says. Option (D) implies that the details given make its products attractive. If you reduce word count by 60%, this will get impacted. The description is where many words are used. 
You don't have to look for a loophole in which case the plan may work. You have to look for a reason due to which the plan may not work.

Note that this is the only option that deals with the plan given.

sid0791 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

I still don't get why D is correct.

I get this point that we have to weaken the argument that reducing word count and redesigning a website can help to increase the customer base.
And I also get it, that B doesn't directly talk about the website redesign and decrease in the word count. Also in B, it is dependent on the survey, for which we don't have any details.

But still, in the argument, it is  never specified which content would be reduced , it only says that word count would be reduced.

And D says only about words that contain product description.

So how can we link, whether the word count that is going to be reduced will contain product description. There are chances that it might not contain the product description. And they are only reducing other words count, for example, information about company, extra blogs/articles, customer care page, etc.

KarishmaB · Answer

The number of words are to be reduced on EACH page by over 60%. The predominant part of the website would be pages giving their products and product descriptions. From where will you reduce 60% of the words on those pages? It will be from the product description. That is the part that will have words. 
The intent of option (D) is very clear. The argument specifies that words will be reduced from every page. It also specifies that 60% of the words will be reduced (so more than half). 
But detailed descriptions is what sells. Hence, the plan becomes questionable.

abhishekmayank · Answer

It is difficult to assume that differentiating feature is a coveted and demanding feature for customers, and hence as per the option D, the absence of the differentiating feature (detailed description) will dent the goal.

dsingh1996 · Answer

I wouldn't worry too much about this question appearing on the actual thing.

For one, option D doesn't specify the reduction in words will cause a reduction in the product description. It could be terms and conditions of purchase, return policy, description of the manufacturer, reviews from customers - we're assuming that the reduction will be only in product description.

Option B states the "most important reason" - sure there could be other reasons but how can we assume that UI/UX of the site is one of the reasons? We will have to assume UI UX is still pretty relevant for option B to be correct. That's bringing outside information in my opinion.

For me this is a poor quality question.

jps245 · Answer

Hello,

This is an old question, but wanted to see if anyone that chose D could help me out with this one.

Can we assume differentiating feature here has a positive connotation, and if so, what indicates that? I read this as just saying the long descriptions make the site different from others, not better or worse.

On the surface, this would seem better for the customer, and I guess we could assume that, making D the right answer. But if the long descriptions were annoying to most customers, or even were part of the reason for the low conversion rate, couldn't we make the argument that this is a reason the plan would succeed, not fail?

I had B just because it seemed like their plan wouldn't address this pricing issue, but this answer had issues too, so I wouldn't argue for it (if "most common answer" was changed to something stronger, like "almost all customers", this might have been a better answer)

Thanks

KarishmaB · Answer

"Saticoy's primary differentiating feature in the marketplace" implies its USP, what sets it apart from the others. It is what makes it stand out and what. makes people take notice. The "primary differentiating" feature of a product is the feature which makes the product better than others. You would be expected to understand that we are talking about something that is considered a positive aspect of the product.

NPProb · Answer

I'm not convinced by any of the explanations above.
Indeed, the question stem talks about "reduce the number of words on each page", but it   could   have nothing to do with whether the descriptions of products are detailed or not, because there   might be   a lot of other information in the page on their website, maybe they just cut down those kinds of information without affecting the thoroughness of the details about the products,   that's possible  . While on the other hand, if price is indeed "  the most   common reason that the customers left the site", then if you doesn't change it, then it   definitely   won't help you "  increase   the single-visit conversion rate", because customers who thinks the price is above the acceptable level won't just want to buy a product simply because they are closer to the checkout link.
 Pay attention here , shortening the words will   at least   shorten the pages, which leads to readied access to the checkout link, and   possibly   won't affect the information delivered, which   possibly   increase the conversion rate. While unchanged price   certainly   won't help increase people's willingness of buying.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

This is a very tricky one, especially since the first sentence is a distractor. It mentions a decline in revenue, but the argument isn't addressing revenue at all. That's just the background for this specific strategy to increase the ratio of sales to visits. We need an answer that suggests that this specific strategy (cutting page length) will not increase the % of sales. There's no specific target given, so we don't need to know how important this particular factor is. We just need to know whether it will help at all.

A) feels like a weaken, but it's about the # of actual visitors, and a decrease in # of visitors doesn't have to affect the ratio we're looking at. In fact, if we see a reduction in non-buying visitors, then the conversion rate could increase as a result of the decrease in visitors.

B) also feels like a weaken, but note that it's talking about "the most common reason," not the only reason. Sure, lowering prices might help, but that doesn't change whether this secondary measure could help. As an analogy, we know that heart disease is a major killer, while plane crashes are not. However, if I say that we can save lives through increased airline safety, you can't weaken that argument by pointing out the importance of heart disease. Either the plane plan would save lives, or it wouldn't. Same thing here. Either the change to the web site will increase conversion, or it won't. B would only weaken if it told us that NO ONE left without purchasing because of the difficulty of accessing checkout. (Please see the official explanation above for further discussion of this--they cover it fairly well.)

C) is a standard variation trap. It brings up a difference that doesn't affect the issue at hand, and doesn't connect to any given info.

D) may not feel terribly convincing, since perhaps the site could still have detailed descriptions in fewer words. However, it gives us what we ought to have predicted: a reason that the change in the site MAY NOT lead to an increase in purchases. Like almost all weaken answers, it doesn't completely destroy the argument. That isn't the goal, and if we hold out for that, we'll rarely find a weaken answer we like. All it has to do is call the conclusion into question. If the words are cut by 60%, it seems reasonable that the level of detail may suffer, even if we can imagine an alternative.

E) doesn't do much for us. The experiences of competitors COULD be relevant, but we don't have enough information here. Were the redesigns anything like the one Saticoy is considering? Did they fail for reasons that are likely to affect this company, too? We don't have enough information to connect this data to the current situation.

vasu1104 · Answer

over the last 3 years, revenue for S has been down by nearly 50%. 
 want to increase its single visit conversion rate. 
 plan- redesign its website so users wont have to scroll to reach checkout link. 
 outcome- redesign will reduce words on each page by over 60%

they are assuming that there are so many things written between product page and checkout page and thats why people are not converting their visit into purchase. so if we reduce that distance by reducing words written in between, we will have more people buying stuff.

A but plan is to convert single visitor to potential buyer through redesign the page. and this has no impact at all on that plan 
 B but this has no impact on the goal of redesigning the webpage. good to know that they have higher price but plan is redesign the page. 
 C this is irrelevant. 
 D if this is the case then reducing the num of words will hamper their main usp. so now despite implementing their plan, result would be same or may be worse. 
 E no impact whatsoever.

Over the last three years, Saticoy Industries has seen nearly a 50% de

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

Over the last three years, Saticoy Industries has seen nearly a 50% de

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