Travaillier Corporation has recently hired employees with experience

Question

Travaillier Corporation has recently hired employees with experience in the bus tour industry, and its executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies. But Travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air, and marketing surveys show that Travaillier’s traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences. Therefore, Travaillier must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

(A) In the past, Travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
(B) Several travel companies other than Travaillier have recently tried and failed to expand into the bus tour business.
(C) At least one of Travaillier’s new employees not only has experience in the bus tour industry but has also designed air travel vacation packages.
(D) Some of Travaillier’s competitors have increased profits by concentrating their attention on their customers who spend the most on vacations.
(E) The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.

LSAT

KB04 · Accepted Answer

Travaillier Corporation has recently hired employees with experience in the bus tour industry, and its executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies. But Travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air, and marketing surveys show that Travaillier’s traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences. Therefore, Travaillier must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

(A) In the past, Travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
(B) Several travel companies other than Travaillier have recently tried and failed to expand into the bus tour business.
(C) At least one of Travaillier’s new employees not only has experience in the bus tour industry but has also designed air travel vacation packages.
(D) Some of Travaillier’s competitors have increased profits by concentrating their attention on their customers who spend the most on vacations.
(E) The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.

In weaken arguments we always focus on the conclusion of the argument. In this argument the conclusion is that Travaillier must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers.
If anything, A, I feel, strengthen the argument by suggesting that something that could have helped the company to expand it's customer base is very difficult.
B does nothing to the argument. We cannot assume that other companies are similar to Travaillier, simply because there is no link given in the argument as such. So B is out.
C is a trap answer. Simply ask a question how does one's experience help the company to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers. This can come later when company has already enlarged it's customer base but before this enlargement it doesn't help with anything.
D is irrelevant. Like B, D also tries to tell us that other companies are similar to Travaillier while there is no linkage present in the stimulus.
E is the correct answer because it suggests a different/alternate strategy by saying "how about we work with our existing customers and introduce new products and services to them". This answer choice certainly weakens the answer by telling us that there is an alternate way of enlarging the customer base.

Feedback on explanation is welcome, specially from experts

Thank you
Please press kudos if this explanation has helped you

Thank you Please press kudos if this explanation has helped you

KB04 · Answer

E has to be the answer as it provides an alternate reason and weakens the conclusion.

protimakudnu@yahoo.com · Answer

Is there any explanation for this answer?

edlc313 · Answer

Travaillier Corporation has recently hired employees with experience in the bus tour industry, and its executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies. But Travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air, and marketing surveys show that Travaillier’s traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences. Therefore, Travaillier must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Which one of the following, if true,  would most weaken the argument?

Step 1: Putting prompt in your own words 
So we know that Company T normally serves consumers who travel by air, and are diversifying the business into the bus tour industry. Prompt says that traditional customers won't change their preferences. The argument is, Company T must be trying to  grow it's customer base  by attracting  new customers .

Step 2: Define the construct of the ideal answer 
To weaken the argument, we want to  disprove that the expansion  into bus tours is  NOT  because they want  new customers.

(A) In the past, Travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers’ vacation preferences.
 Tautological information. Prompt tells us this already.

(B) Several travel companies other than Travaillier have recently tried and failed to expand into the bus tour business.
 More than 1 issue with this answer:
1) We cannot assume. For example, Company T is similar to other travel companies. Therefore, if other travel companies fail, Company T must fail. Totally wrong to assume this.
2) Explaining why Company T might fail doesn't provide info about negating that the expansion to seek NEW customers

(C) At least one of Travaillier’s new employees not only has experience in the bus tour industry but has also designed air travel vacation packages.
 Give us insight into who they've hired, but doesn't negate that the expansion to seek NEW customers.

(D) Some of Travaillier’s competitors have increased profits by concentrating their attention on their customers who spend the most on vacations.
 Nothing here about the negating expansion into bus tour industry to seek out NEW customers

(E) The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.
 Talks about expansion and the customer base! Let's verify - consultants to Company T say they can expanding by introducing current customers (who won't change their preferences) to new products and services. This would negate the argument that Company T  must  be expanding into bus tours to gain new customers. This question addresses that it's because they want to introduce new services to  current  customers instead.

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  GMATNinja   MartyMurray   KarishmaB

I have question on option E and option C.

Option E just mentions what industry consultants recommend to Travaillier but we don't know whether T company actually implements or not for its business which is intuitive as we all hear advice/recommendations in our lives but don't follow every. Is it fine to make such an assumption that T implements what those consultants recommend? This was the main reason why I rejected E.

On option C, it only talks about new hires having experience in airlines but doesn't throw any light on "executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies", can we reject option C on the basis of latter (second condition) too as the argument is based on two premises?

Please let me know your thoughts.

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's simplify the thought process here. The argument, boiled way down, is this: because Travaillier is doing stuff connected to bus tours -- even though its customer base typically travels by plane -- it must be trying to get new customers.

If we want to weaken this, we want an answer choice that suggests that Travaillier's motivation in doing bus tour stuff isn't about enlarging its customer base.

As we evaluate the answer choices, let's pose this as a question: if this is true, could it mean that Travaillier's move into bus tours is NOT an attempt to win new customers?

(C) says nothing about customers. Because it sheds zero light on our question, we can kill it.

If (E) is true, it does address the question. Maybe they aren't trying to get  new  customers with all this bus tour stuff. Maybe it's trying to get  existing  customers to spend money on new things. Do we know for sure that they'll do this? Of course not! But it addresses our question in a logical way, so at the very least, we'll hold on to it.

Lo and behold, nothing else really addresses our question at all. So (E) is our best bet.

The takeaway: pose a clear question to yourself before going to the answers. If an answer logically addresses the question, keep it. If not, discard it. Simple as that. No need to search for the perfect answer.

I hope that helps!

Travaillier Corporation has recently hired employees with experience

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

Travaillier Corporation has recently hired employees with experience

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