Five years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson Appliance

Question

Five years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson Appliance Company accounted for 50 percent of all sales of hair dryers nationwide. Currently, however, Wilson Appliance's product makes up only 25 percent of such sales. Because of this decline, and because the average net income that Wilson receives per hair dryer sold has not changed over the last 5 years, the company's net income from sales of the product must be only half of what it was 5 years ago.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) mistakes a decline in the market share of Wilson Appliance's hair dryer for a decline in the total sales of that product

(B) does not provide specific information about the profits hair dryers generate for the companies that produce them

(C) fails to discuss sales figures for Wilson Appliance's products other than its hair dryers

(D) overlooks the possibility that the retail price of Wilson Appliance's hair dryer may have increased over the past 5 years

(E) provides no independent evidence that Wilson Appliance's hair dryer is one of the company's least profitable products

Source: LSAT

akshayk · Answer

The author is assuming that the current 25% market share held by WA means their product sales has dropped. It fails to consider that the overall sales of th product may have increased.

A helps weaken the argument.

IMO A is the answer.

Chets25 · Answer

A clearly weakens the argument...we can't infer drop in sales just because market share has declined. Market share could decline because more players entered in the market and Wilson's sales are still the same and products are reaching to greater number of customers

ive years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson Appliance Company accounted for 50 percent of all sales of hair dryers nationwide. Currently, however, Wilson Appliance's product makes up only 25 percent of such sales. Because of this decline, and because the average net income that Wilson receives per hair dryer sold has not changed over the last 5 years, the company's net income from sales of the product must be only half of what it was 5 years ago.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) mistakes a decline in the market share of Wilson Appliance's hair dryer for a decline in the total sales of that product

(B) does not provide specific information about the profits hair dryers generate for the companies that produce them

(C) fails to discuss sales figures for Wilson Appliance's products other than its hair dryers

(D) overlooks the possibility that the retail price of Wilson Appliance's hair dryer may have increased over the past 5 years

(E) provides no independent evidence that Wilson Appliance's hair dryer is one of the company's least profitable products

Source: LSAT

wileywafer · Answer

if you have curly hair and you need the best hair dryer I refer you to choose the  hooded hair dryer  you can get saloon-style at home, I am sure this will gonna be very useful especially in these days (COVID-19) Read More SHOW LESS

kntombat · Answer

nightblade354   Bunuel   yashikaaggarwal

I did choose A as my answer but I was originally confused between A and D. As no one has pointed out why D is wrong, could either of you help me out here.

Thank you.

yashikaaggarwal · Answer

The passage does mention that the Wilson Appliance's product makes up only 25 percent of sales currently, and the average net income that Wilson receives per hair dryer sold has not changed over the last 5 years.

we can say that the sales have not exactly decline if they are able to maintain the average net income.
so we have to find a point which validates why their net income is stable.

(A) mistakes a decline in the market share of Wilson Appliance's hair dryer for a decline in the total sales of that product (exactly, 25% decrease can be in market share but that don't necessarily state that their sales also decreased.) (CORRECT)

(B) does not provide specific information about the profits hair dryers generate for the companies that produce them (we don't need profit level for all the company that produces them, we just need prove that sales didn't dropped) (INCORRECT)

(C) fails to discuss sales figures for Wilson Appliance's products other than its hair dryers (other products of wilson are of no use to us) (INCORRECT)

(D) overlooks the possibility that the retail price of Wilson Appliance's hair dryer may have increased over the past 5 years (if the prices are increased over 5 years, there are two cases the net income would have increased, more profits or have decreased as people shifted to other product because of high prices, none of the said case is stated in the passage by author, hence the option is not enough to validate the stability of net income of wilson) (INCORRECT)

(E) provides no independent evidence that Wilson Appliance's hair dryer is one of the company's least profitable products (the net revenue would have decreased not stablized, out of context)
 
Hence A is best option.

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.

Five years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson Appliance

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

Five years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson Appliance

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