An independent analyst asserts that the new Carl Zeiss P70 camera

Question

An independent analyst asserts that the new Pokia digital camera for mobile phones is more precise, of higher quality and costs less than any of the popular competing models. As a result, Pokia will become the more desirable, low-priced alternative to currently existing models of digital cameras.

Which of the following, if true, would most challenge the argument above?

(A) Many retailers already carry one or more low-priced digital cameras and are disinclined to carry another.

(B) Several lower-priced models of digital cameras will soon be introduced by other mobile phone manufacturers.

(C) The Pokia Corporation’s digital camera can be used in conjunction with higher-priced mobile phones manufactured by other companies.

(D) Most of the individuals and companies that would be expected to make up the potential market for the Pokia digital camera have already fulfilled their
digital camera needs.

(E) The independent analyst whose views were incorporated in the statement above has used measures of quality that are not universally accepted by the consumer public.

Why are options A and D wrong?

VeritasPrepBrandon · Accepted Answer

This is a weaken question. The analyst asserts that it is more precise, of higher quality, and less expensive than other options. Well cost and precision are not very subjective, but quality certainly is. If, as in answer choice E, the analysts' opinion of quality differs from that of the general public, then this argument is very much weakened.

Answer choices A and D are both incorrect because they each focus only on the practical success of the camera, and not on whether or not it is a preferred alternative. If many retailers refuse to carry the camera, as in A, then sure that might hurt the camera's profitability. But it does NOT prevent the camera from being a more desirable, lower priced option. It's just tougher to find the camera. D is a similar situation. D states that most of the potential market for the camera has already bought a camera, but this does nothing to affect the camera's attractiveness relative to its "opponents." Both A and D are out of scope here.

I hope this helps!!!

sumitkrocks · Answer

IMO E weakens the conclusion , as it shows the reasoning given by analyst is flawed ..
D and E looked contenders ..as conclusion talks about becoming an alternative..and even if most of the potential buyers have stock ..CZC's camera can become alternative for many other buyers..hence, rejected D

Sent from my Redmi 3S using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

AshutoshB · Answer

Yes Answer is correct, but I think your reasoning is little off the track

D is wrong because the argument is about the Desirability of CZ lens not about its sales, So even if its sales will not increase, it can still be most desirable of all other similar products

Actually, this is also the same reason for rejecting A

Hope you get my point

Arro44 · Answer

The trick here is to differentiate between the camera beeing bought and the camera becoming desireable.

Although I might desire and Iphone 10, I am not going to bz it because of its high price. However, only statement E actually weakens the expected desireability of the new camera lens.

iridescent995 · Answer

Doesn't E attack the premise? According to my understanding, we need to attack the conclusion?

cyrwr1 · Answer

Isn't everything given as premises not up to be attacked?

Abhishek009 · Answer

You are absolutely correct !!!! No doubt about that...

Reconsider the stimulus once again we are not at all claiming Pokia cant provide those features, ( Cheap, quality images etc.....) we are considering those , however we are expanding the loop hole (in the arguement) / reasoning for drawing the conclusion , that people will prefer Pokia ...

Hope this helps..

sanjayparihar16 · Answer

iridescent995   cyrwr1

You are correct that we are not supposed to attack premise.

So let's understand what do we mean by "attacking the premise". If you're completely disregarding whatever is mentioned in premise, then that becomes a attack on premise or you're challenging the premise. So we can never directly dismiss any premise cause that will be the wrong thing to do.

Now coming to the given question, analyst says that quality A, quality B and quality C are great, hence it would be the bestseller stuff.

Had it been a case where we said that quality A, quality B and quality C are  NOT  great , then that becomes a case of dismissing a premise. In this case, we are just saying that okay - analyst might be correct with his position but he is not aligned with the viewpoint of greater audience.

Hope this helped.

A bend in the road is not the end of road unless you fail to take a turn

Anandanwar · Answer

Hello,
I need some help here.
Option B says lower priced models will be released by other mobile manufacturers.
To me this seems to weaken "Pokia will become more desirable, low price alternative"

Could experts shed some light on this?
If my understanding is correct i will also like to know how do we reject the choice B and choose A.

Thanks!

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Anandanwar . Option B does not weaken the argument because we cannot assume that these other  lower-priced models of digital cameras  will feature the qualities that would make the Pokia phone, ultimately,  the more desirable, low-priced alternative to currently existing models of digital cameras . These new low-priced phones might  not  produce  more precise... higher quality  images like the Pokia model.

How would you choose option A? Well, you might notice that A is not the OA given, so you should not be choosing it. I can see where  VeritasPrepBrandon  is coming from earlier in the thread, but I take issue with the phrasing in answer choice (E), specifically  not  universally  accepted . This could mean that all but one person would  agree  with the views of the independent analyst: consensus need not be established to lend credence to the assertions. Without the word  universally , I would find (E) a much more compelling answer. As is, I find it lacking, as though we are meant to interpret it in a way that leads to challenging the argument, and I doubt an official question would be so loose with its qualifying language. Taken as a whole, I do not see any clear-cut winner among the options given, and I would recommend getting back to official material.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Anandanwar · Answer

Thanks Andrew Sir

Actually I meant to write E but don't know why I typed A

. Thanks for the elaborate explanation.

dhairya18 · Answer

Why Option E Attacks the Assumption, NOT the Premise

Many test-takers eliminate Option E because they think it breaks the fundamental GMAT rule: "Do not attack the premise."
However, Option E does NOT attack the premise. It attacks the hidden ASSUMPTION that bridges the premise to the conclusion.

Here is the precise breakdown using standard logic mapping.

1. Premise vs. Assumption Breakdown

Stated Premise (Fact): "An independent analyst asserts that Pokia is more precise, of higher quality and costs less..."
Note: The premise is NOT "The camera is high quality." The premise is simply the FACT that an analyst asserted it.
Conclusion: "Pokia will become the more desirable, low-priced alternative..."
Hidden Assumption:
Analyst's Quality Criteria = Consumer's Quality Criteria

2. Why Option E Does Not Attack the Premise

Attacking the premise would mean claiming the analyst never said this, or that the analyst does not exist.
Option E accepts 100% that the analyst made these statements. It simply points out a gap between the analyst's personal standards and the public's standards:
Analyst Criteria (Premise) != Consumer Criteria (Option E) -> Pokia is NOT Desirable to Consumers

3. Real-World Parallel

Premise: A top chef asserts that Restaurant X serves the highest quality snail soup in the city.
Conclusion: Therefore, Restaurant X will be the most desirable dining spot for local families.
Weaken Choice: Most local families do not consider snail soup to be high-quality or appealing food.
Does this weaken choice attack the premise? No. The chef really did call it high-quality. But because families do not care about snail soup, the chef's opinion fails to make the restaurant "desirable" to them.

An independent analyst asserts that the new Carl Zeiss P70 camera

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

An independent analyst asserts that the new Carl Zeiss P70 camera

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