A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown

Question

A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown location of a certain city, is of a limited size and has grown so much over the past year that it needs to expand. There are a few other slightly larger available retails lots in the downtown regions for sale, but the prices per square foot are quite high. The management finds that cost per square foot of lots in a suburb a few miles from downtown is almost half of that in the downtown region, so they plan to relocate there to save costs.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this plan?

A) The store will have to adapt to the building codes of the suburb, which may not be the same as the city.
B) The lot for the suburb location will require a sprawling parking lot.
C) Consumers from the city who do not own cars will have to pay bus fare to commute to this store now.
D) Almost all of the store's other locations, in other metropolitan regions throughout the state, are in downtown areas; very few are in suburbs.
E) Some of the available downtown locations, though only a few blocks away, would be closest to entirely different bus and subway lines.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

dhart · Answer

A) The store will have to adapt to the building codes of the suburb, which may not be the same as the city. 
 The store mgmt can change/adapt its wprking style
B) The lot for the suburb location will require a sprawling parking lot.
 Paring lot can be expensive
C) Consumers from the city who do not own cars will have to pay bus fare to commute to this store now.
This can be a concern , if customers have to take more efoorts to reach the store , they can look for other nearer options . Correct
D) Almost all of the store's other locations, in other metropolitan regions throughout the state, are in downtown areas; very few are in suburbs. We are talking about this paricular store location
E) Some of the available downtown locations, though only a few blocks away, would be closest to entirely different bus and subway lines.
Closeness to some line of buses and subways is good but how much will it help these customers, that's the question ??

Genius001 · Answer

The store wants to move to the suburb because the land is cheaper.

To weaken this plan, we need a reason why moving would hurt the business more than it saves money.

A) Different building codes → Just a small inconvenience. ❌
B) A bigger parking lot is needed → This is expected in suburbs and doesn't stop the move. ❌
✅ C) Many city customers without cars must pay bus fare → Fewer people may visit the store, so sales could drop. This directly hurts the plan. ✔️
D) Other store locations are downtown → Doesn't mean this location must stay downtown. ❌
E) Different downtown lots are near different transit lines → Still downtown, so this doesn't make the suburb move look bad. ❌

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. Different building codes don't necessarily mean higher costs. The plan could still save money.
B. Correct: A huge parking lot means buying a much larger piece of land. Even at half the price per square foot, the total cost could end up being higher. The key word is  sprawling !
C. This is a cost to customers, not to the store. The argument is about saving costs, not maximizing sales. Also it doent say that the consumers wont be wiling to pay the bus fare
D. This is just an observation. It doesn't tell us why suburban locations would be a bad choice.
E. Being near different bus or subway lines doesn't say anything about whether relocating downtown would cost less or more.

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer:   (B)

(A) Incorrect (Weak / Speculative): Stating that building codes  "may not be the same"  is too vague to prove that adapting to them will incur significant financial costs that outweigh cutting land expenses in half. 
  (B) Correct (Attacks Total Cost Logic):  The management's plan to save costs rests entirely on the premise that the cost  per square foot  in the suburb is half that of downtown. However, total cost =(cost per sq ft) * (total sq ft required). If a suburban location requires purchasing a sprawling parking lot—demanding significantly more land than a downtown site would—the total cost of land could easily exceed the downtown price, undermining the plan to save money. 
 (C) Incorrect (Out of Scope / Non-Financial to the Store): While paying bus fare may be a minor inconvenience for non-car-owning customers, this choice does not show that the store itself will fail to save costs on its relocation. 
 (D) Incorrect (Irrelevant Comparison): Where other store branches are located across the state has no bearing on whether moving  this  specific branch to the suburb will successfully reduce costs. 
 (E) Incorrect (Irrelevant Downtown Detail): Different bus/subway lines near other downtown options do not address the financial viability or cost savings of relocating to the suburb.

SaurabhB9999 · Answer

IMO option B attacks the actual mechanism stated in the argument, not adjacent-but-plausible business concerns. 
The plan's mechanism is: lower price/sqft → lower total cost. 
B breaks that mechanism directly by showing the store may need much more square footage, potentially erasing the savings entirely. 
C is a good "should they do this" business consideration, but it's not a strict, logical undermining of the stated cost-saving plan.

nequeofficiis · Answer

Can anyone assist to answer this question? I thought that the answer was C.. mainly due to if they moved places, then the people who originally went there would have to find other means to go to the store again

counterclash1 · Answer

Do let me know if this helps. It tells why C is not the answer.

Correct Answer:   (B)

(B) Correct (Attacks Total Cost Logic):  The management's plan to save costs rests entirely on the premise that the cost  per square foot  in the suburb is half that of downtown. However, total cost =(cost per sq ft) * (total sq ft required). If a suburban location requires purchasing a sprawling parking lot—demanding significantly more land than a downtown site would—the total cost of land could easily exceed the downtown price, undermining the plan to save money.
 
 (C) Incorrect (Out of Scope / Non-Financial to the Store): While paying bus fare may be a minor inconvenience for non-car-owning customers, this choice does not show that the store itself will fail to save costs on its relocation.

Bunuel · Answer

Magoosh Official Explanation:

The credited answer is (B).

The cost per square foot may be almost half as much in the suburbs, so it initially sounds cheaper, but the "sprawling parking lot" in the suburbs will be part of the lot, and hence will count in the cost. The word "sprawling" implies very big. It could easily be more than twice as big as the floor space of the store, so the overall cost of this suburban lot, even with the lower per-foot rate, would be much higher than it would be for a downtown lot. In that case, relocating to the suburbs would not save costs, so this fact by itself could possibly undermine the conclusion completely.

The building codes in the suburbs are different—does that mean it's more or less expensive to build something in the suburbs than downtown? We don't know. Furthermore, we don't know if the store plans to build, or will be renting a space in an already constructed building, in which case building costs associated with codes would be irrelevant. Choice (A) is incorrect.

At the heart of (C), we have a cost issue for consumers, not for the store. It doesn't directly affect the store's balance sheet. If the commute to the suburb dissuades a significant number of customers from coming, that could be a problem, but we have no clear evidence to conclude that this would happen. Choice (C) is incorrect because we would need to assume information that isn't in the passage or answer choice.

Choice (D) merely tells us about an overall pattern, and gives us no information about why this pattern is in place. Is there something relative adverse about suburban locations? Or, is it just the case that not many stores have even attempted such a move? We don't know, so we can't say that this undermines the plan. Choice (D) is incorrect.

Choice (E) tells about what would happen if the store moved to other downtown locations. This is not part of the plan under consideration, nor is it clear whether the difference cited would have any cost consequences for the store. This is 100% irrelevant. Choice (E) is incorrect.

Bhavek · Answer

I was looking for something which will reduce sales, Totally forgot about cost in eliminating options.

avoluptatum · Answer

Author's main argument:  Relocating the store to a suburb will lower costs
 Looking for:  Evidence that shows moving to a suburb will actually not lower costs as initially hypothesized

B:   Correct - including a large parking lot into the relocation plan will significantly increase expected costs
  C:   Incorrect - while this answer choice insinuates that overall costs for consumers will increase, it is not relevant to the conversation of costs for management of the store

A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown

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

­A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown

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

A successful clothing department store, in a central downtown