Because tires have become longer lasting and cheaper, tire retailers

Question

Because tires have become longer lasting and cheaper, tire retailers are being forced to find new sources of revenue. Some stores are selling more services, such as tire rotations and oil changes, and others are selling a broader range of products, such as seat covers, air fresheners, and other amenities. Neither strategy will work, however, because people who are shopping for tires don’t buy anything other than tires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about the strategies that tire retailers are using?

A. Because consumers associate tire retailers primarily with tires, most consumers seeking other products offered by tire retailers are likely to shop for those products elsewhere.

B. Because tires are sold at a high margin, no other services or products can ever replace the revenue made from tires.

C. Tire retailers have thrived even though tires have steadily become more durable and less expensive for the past 50 years.

D. Consumers often buy only two tires at a time, as tires wear out at different rates depending upon which wheel they’re on.

E. Consumers who patronize a retailer for one product tend to recall the retailer’s other offerings and return when they are shopping for those things.

sparshgs97 · Answer

Can someone please give a reasoning for A as well. I was confused between A and E

PoojanB · Answer

Hi  sparshgs97  , Happy to help
The argument basically says - since tier are becoming long lasting and cheaper, tire retailers have started other things along with tires at their shop to keep the revenue coming.
author says this is not gonna work cause  people who shop tires aren't gonna buy anything else than tire.  
Now we have to  weaken  the claim marked above in blue.

A says- because customers associate tire retailer only with tires, they are gonna buy those extra products( those which the retailers were planning to sell in their shop along with the tire)somewhere else. This is nothing but the strengthening the author's claim. Hence A can be eliminated.

E however- customer who patronize the retailer for one product(e.g. tire)often remembers other offerings form the retailer and they buy them when they come back next time. BINGO...now the retailer's strategy gonna work and hence E is perfectly weakening author's claim.

Hope this helps

Kinshook · Answer

Because tires have become longer lasting and cheaper, tire retailers are being forced to find new sources of revenue. Some stores are selling more services, such as tire rotations and oil changes, and others are selling a broader range of products, such as seat covers, air fresheners, and other amenities. Neither strategy will work, however, because people who are shopping for tires don’t buy anything other than tires.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about the strategies that tire retailers are using?

A. Because consumers associate tire retailers primarily with tires, most consumers seeking other products offered by tire retailers are likely to shop for those products elsewhere.
 Strengthens the conclusion

B. Because tires are sold at a high margin, no other services or products can ever replace the revenue made from tires. 
 
 C. Tire retailers have thrived even though tires have steadily become more durable and less expensive for the past 50 years.
 
 D. Consumers often buy only two tires at a time, as tires wear out at different rates depending upon which wheel they’re on.
 
 E. Consumers who patronize a retailer for one product tend to recall the retailer’s other offerings and return when they are shopping for those things.
 
Weakens the conclusion since conclusion is based on the fact that people who are shopping for tires don’t buy anything other than tires but this statement states that consumers buy tire retailers other offerings as well.

IMO E

AliciaSierra · Answer

Hello Sparsh @sparshg,

if you are confused between A and E, it means either you didn't understand conclusion of argument or you didn't understand question because option A and E are 180 degree opposite to each other.

Option A supports the conclusion but Option E weak the conclusion.

Let's see what argument says.

--  It a fact. Because of long life of tires, tire sellers are supposed to find new source of revenue.

Again this is fact. As per above fact, sellers are selling other products in order to earn revenues.

Author is concluding that above stated strategies will not work. It is author's conclusion. His/her conclusion is based on premise/assumption that people who are shopping for tires won't buy anything else than tires in that shop.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about the strategies that tire retailers are using? 
Here comes the question which asks us to find option which weakens the conclusion i.e. Neither strategy will work. We have to find option which says strategy may work.

As per Option A, shopper in tire shop may buy ONLY TIRES and he/she may not buy any other product. This exactly fits author conclusion in which he/she said   Neither strategy will work

Option E says if consumer treats one shop for one product then consumer also look other products of that shop and whenever consumer is in need of other product he/she think of going to same shop in which he saw that product. This option weakens Author conclusion(Neither strategy will work)

I hope I made sense to you. Thanks

Mrozhko · Answer

A - just strengthening the conclusion, it says: customers who shop for tires just, would go to the tire shop to buy tires, and if they shop for something else they would go to buy it somewhere else

B- it basically says, that tire shop owners have no other products to make revenue off - out of scope, 100 percent

C- it says that tire retailers doing well, even they selling pretty much durable products - undermines premise, rather than the conclusion

D - it says that tires just poor quality, but, who cares

E - it's pretty much straight forward, and the only one that left, but, to clarify why it's right, it basically just says that customers who buy tires and are satisfied with production are coming back to buy other car production, becoming regulars (very vague, I know), thus weakening the conclusion

Hope it helped, lads

Because tires have become longer lasting and cheaper, tire retailers

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

Because tires have become longer lasting and cheaper, tire retailers

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