An inadequately diversified product line rather than the poor economy

Question

An inadequately diversified product line(Cause)---> drop in sales of the Company(Effect)

This is a causal relationship. While assuming such relation between two entities, you will always have to assume that there isn't another cause which is giving the same effect.
Option B breaks the argument by providing another cause; hence it is our answer.

Posted from my mobile device

The conclusion above depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Company A is significantly smaller than Company B.
(B) Company A did not suffer a very damaging public scandal 3 years ago.
(C) Company B is the only one of Company A's competitors that has experienced no decline in product sales during the recent economic downturn.
(D) Several of Company A's competitors have gone out of business.
(E) Company A is not the only one in its industry experiencing decreased sales.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation:

Read the Argument and Extract Necessary Information:

The argument states draws a comparison between two companies to make its claims, which indicates one of the typical argument types the Comparisonl argument.

The assumption in comparison arguments is that the things compared are similar in all ways (except the ways mentioned). This argument assumes there are no other difference between Company A and Company B.

The argument also indicates the cause for the declining sales, which points to another common argument type, the causal argument, which assumes there is no other possible cause for the indicated effect (declining sales).

Formulate an Answer to the Question: 
The assumptions are the answer so no need.

Eliminate Answer Choices: 
(A) Weakens. An argument will never assume something that will weaken that argument. This statement points out a difference between the two companies thus weakening the comparison made.

(B) Keep. This choice indicates that the author assumes there is no other possible reason (the scandal) for the declining sales).

(C) Not Assumed. The argument makes no mention of nor brings up other competitors.

(D) Not Assumed. The argument makes no mention of nor brings up other competitors.

(E) Not assumed/weakens. The argument does not make assumptions about what is occuring at companies other than A or B. Additional, if the author does assume that A is not the only company experiencing decreased sales that may weaken the argument by possibly pointing to a poor economy causing declines for the entire industry.

Choose B.

thelastskybender · Answer

An inadequately diversified product line( Cause )---> drop in sales of the Company( Effect )

This is a causal relationship. While assuming such relation between two entities, you will always have to assume that there isn't another cause which is giving the same effect. 
Option B breaks the argument by providing another cause; hence it is our answer.

Posted from my mobile device

mysterymanrog · Answer

A) The size of the company is irrelevant here. There is no reason why that piece of information should influence the argument. 
B) This is a good choice. The author makes a causal statement: "An inequality diversified product line is the cause of the sales decline, not the poor economy". If Company A had undergone a public scandal, then it is possible that the product line diversification is no longer the cause of the sales decline, but the public scandal. 
C) Even if other competitors had experienced sales decline, there is no telling if they had "adequately" diversified product lines. Moreover, the focus on the argument is not on the other competitors, but on the sales decline of company A. 
D) This is not required by the argument. Once again, the focus of this argument is not about what the competitors of A (excl. B because the author cites B as an example). 
E) This is a piece of information that is most likely true - if there is a poor economy as the author suggests, then there are most likely other firms who have also seen a sales decline. However, the author has never made the assumption that company A was the only company facing a sales decline.

From elimination, the choice must be B.

TheBipedalHorse · Answer

(B) Company A did not suffer a very damaging public scandal 3 years ago.

Bunuel , doesn't this introduce new "outside" information. I'm wondering how is this assumption a must? Assumptions are supposed to be something that the author MUST believe in but does not state it explicitly.

Granted, all other options are too strong because of the word "only" in most of them, but this seemed to be like introducing outside information

Deep32470 · Answer

I second that as then this would be the case of elimination of other options.

Posted from my mobile device

mysterymanrog · Answer

Firstly, the usage of "strong" vocab to eliminate choices does not work for the GMAT - it is a trick, and will only work for lower level questions. Word choice is certainly important, however it is not grounds to discard an answer choice purely for strong words.

Secondly: 
No, it is not bringing in extra information. This is something that the author has assumed. 
More specifically, the author makes this statement: 
"An inadequately diversified product line rather than the poor economy is responsible for the drop in sales"

By making this statement, the author has made the claim that the "inadequately diversified product line" is the cause of the drop of sales. Logically, this implies that the author must also assume that there have been no other possible causes for the sales drop, including a public scandal. 
(This is precisely why it is so hard, in a legal context, to establish causal relations - because there are so many other variables at play).
If you are still not convinced, try the negation technique: 
"There was a public scandal involving company A". 
If this is the case, then this undermines the authors argument no? How can we say it is "diversification of product line" when we have the big public scandal? 
Therefore, B is quite integral to the authors argument.

An inadequately diversified product line rather than the poor economy

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

An inadequately diversified product line rather than the poor economy

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