Baxe Interiors,
one of the largest interior design companies in existence, currently has a near monopoly in the corporate market. Several small design companies have won prestigious awards for their corporate work, while Baxe has won none. Nonetheless, the corporate managers who solicit design proposals will only contract with companies they believe are unlikely to go bankrupt, and they believe that only very large companies are unlikely to go bankrupt.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
Possible scenarios:
- Several small DCs have gone bankrupt.
- Small DCs tend to be not good in finances.
- BI has mostly been inferior in designs to small DCs's designs.
(A) There are other very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are
inferior to Baxe’s. - WRONG. 50-50 case.
(B) Baxe
does not have a near monopoly
in the market of any category of interior design other than corporate interiors. - WRONG. There can still be a possible that it is, but known for corporate category only.
(C)
For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are
superior to the designs produced by Baxe. - WRONG. At best, superiority can't be established with given argument. However, the bigger problem is with 'the most part'. We can't be sure about it. This is irrelevant to argument.
(D) At least some of the corporate managers who solicit design proposals are
unaware that there are
designs that are much better than those produced by Baxe. - WRONG. Them being 'unaware' is more bigger a problem to sort than designs being 'better'.
(E) The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe
does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market. - CORRECT. Again superiority of designs is superfluous but it is surely that monopoly is not threatened as yet.
Answer E.