Website Optimization Analyst: Although the website of Sellalot Inc.

Question

Website Optimization Analyst: Although the website of Sellalot Inc. enjoys abundant Internet traffic, which could potentially contribute to increased sales, the large scope of this traffic actually damages the company. While it shows good customer retention statistics, the company's website suffers from poor design and content which reflects poorly on the company, thereby deterring many potential customers from choosing Sellalot.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the analyst's argument?

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the analyst's argument?

A. Whether Sellalot can provide significantly more attractive marketing content to publish on its website

B. Whether the great majority of traffic is new visitors or existing customers using the website services

C. Whether the number of new visitors who do not become customers is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website

D. Whether the number of new customers generated by the website is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website

E. Whether the potential earnings from lost customers exceed the website's earning

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

Sketchitesh · Answer

Abudant traffic -> Potential Increased Sales. 
However 
Abudant traffic -> Damaging the company
Because Poor Design/Content -> Reflects poorly -> Deterring "Potential" customers. 
Good customer retention statistics (fact)

A. Don't know the effects of attractive marketing content.  Out of scope 
B. If Majority Abudant traffic is existing customer then poor design -> irrelevant since we have Good customer retention statistics
 If Majority Abudant traffic is new customers then poor design -> can signifactly damage the company. B looks good.

C. If "new visitor do not become customer"  ∝ no of visitor. not relevant what if new visitor are very very small in number, so even if directly propotional they may not harm. or If very large in proportion to exiting then even if not propotional they may damage the company. Tricky but  irrelevant . Proportion/Percentage vs Absolute value gap.

D. Same as C.  Irrelevant

E. If it exceed or not, it may still damage the company.  Out of scope

B is correct.

NextstopISB · Answer

Question: 
Website Optimization Analyst: Although the website of Sellalot Inc. enjoys abundant Internet traffic, which could potentially contribute to increased sales, the large scope of this traffic actually damages the company. While it shows good customer retention statistics, the company's website suffers from poor design and content which reflects poorly on the company, thereby deterring many potential customers from choosing Sellalot.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the analyst's argument?

A. Whether Sellalot can provide significantly more attractive marketing content to publish on its website 
B. Whether the great majority of traffic is new visitors or existing customers using the website services 
C. Whether the number of new visitors who do not become customers is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website 
D. Whether the number of new customers generated by the website is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website 
E. Whether the potential earnings from lost customers exceed the website's earning

Analysis: 
The argument claims that even though traffic is high, the poor design and content is actually *damaging* the company by deterring potential customers. 
To evaluate this, we need to assess whether the traffic is *helpful or harmful*. If many new visitors are being driven away due to bad design, that would support the claim.

Option A: Talks about potential improvements, but does not help evaluate the *current harm* caused by poor design. 
→ Not useful.

Option B: Useful. If the majority of traffic is *existing* customers, then the poor design may not matter much. But if it’s mostly *new* visitors, and they're being deterred, then it supports the claim that the website is hurting sales. 
→ This helps evaluate the argument. 
→ Correct answer.

Option C: Focuses only on new visitors, but does not tell us whether they would have become customers or what impact that has. Also, proportionate growth doesn’t help determine whether the website is actively harming the company. 
→ Less useful.

Option D: Similar to C, it assumes that growth in traffic and growth in new customers are proportionate. Again, doesn’t directly evaluate the *harm* claimed. 
→ Not as useful.

Option E: This speaks to the financial magnitude of the damage, but the question is asking how to evaluate whether there is damage, not how much. 
→ Out of scope.

Answer: B

bhargavhhhhhhhh · Answer

Correct Answer: E. Whether the potential earnings from lost customers exceed the website's earning

The analyst argues that although the website attracts a lot of traffic and retains customers, its poor design and content deter potential customers, thus harming the company. The conclusion is that the traffic is actually damaging due to missed opportunities.

To evaluate this argument, we need to know whether the damage from lost potential customers outweighs the benefit of the traffic (i.e., current earnings). This is exactly what (E) addresses — if the potential earnings from lost customers (those deterred by poor design/content) are higher than the current earnings, then the analyst’s claim that the traffic is damaging is supported. If not, the traffic might still be beneficial despite some deterrence.

Elimination:

A. "Whether Sellalot can provide significantly more attractive marketing content to publish on its website"
– This is about what Sellalot could do, not whether the current traffic is actually damaging, so it doesn’t evaluate the claim.

B. "Whether the great majority of traffic is new visitors or existing customers using the website services"
– Interesting, but doesn't directly test the claim that the traffic is harmful. Existing customers may not be deterred, but we care about how many potential customers are lost due to the site design.

C. "Whether the number of new visitors who do not become customers is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website"
– This discusses proportions, but doesn’t help evaluate whether the poor design causes damage. The proportion could be constant regardless of design, so it’s irrelevant.

D. "Whether the number of new customers generated by the website is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website"
– Again, this talks about ratios and doesn’t assess whether the loss from deterrence outweighs the benefit of traffic. It's not directly useful in evaluating the analyst’s conclusion.

Therefore, (E) is the only option that directly helps evaluate whether the negative effect outweighs the positive — crucial to testing the argument.

Dereno · Answer

Let’s analyse the question stem and see how we can proceed. The website optimization analyst reports his findings in this passage.

Website Optimization Analyst:  Although  the website of Sellalot Inc.  enjoys abundant Internet traffic , which could potentially contribute to increased sales, the  large scope of this traffic actually damages  the company.

Eventhough Sellalot Inc, enjoys abundant Internet traffic, which COULD  potentially  contribute to increased sales.  We are not sure until now whether it has contributed, but at a positive tone it has contributed to sales.  He says the traffic has done damage rather than positives - net negatives.

While it shows good customer retention statistics ,  the company's website suffers from  poor design and content  which reflects poorly on the company, thereby  deterring many potential customers  from choosing Sellalot.

This abundant traffic has not lead to any deterioration on the existing customer base. The company website design and content has hampered many potential customers from choosing Sellalot.

How can we analyse the argument made by analyst ?

The internet traffic is abundant - means many people visit the site. They can be existing customers or new customers or any random visitor who just stumbled on this site. If they were sure, that increased traffic has led to increased sales, then we can say the people who frequented the site has been the reason for sales growth.

The analyst says, poor design and content of website has prevented potential customers turning into customer base for sellalot. To verify this statement - if we can conclude the internet traffic utilising the website services was majorly because of existing customers. Then, we can accept that the reason put forth by Analyst might be true. If not, further research is needed before concluding it.

Looking at the options, we can ELIMINATE options A, D and E. B and C seems close.

B. Whether the great majority of traffic is new visitors or existing customers using the website services

This is exactly what we have discussed earlier.

C. Whether the number of new visitors who do not become customers is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website.

New visitor not becoming customer can be due to varied reasons - price, choices not suiting their tastes, or limited choice availability, no discounts provided, may be they can come back another time to make purchase. Among these reasons content and poor design can also be accommodated.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Website Optimization Analyst: Although the website of Sellalot Inc. enjoys abundant Internet traffic, which could potentially contribute to increased sales, the large scope of this traffic actually damages the company. While it shows good customer retention statistics, the company's website suffers from poor design and content which reflects poorly on the company, thereby deterring many potential customers from choosing Sellalot.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the analyst's argument?

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the analyst's argument?

A. Whether Sellalot can provide significantly more attractive marketing content to publish on its website

Incorrect.

To solve this Investigation question, first break down the argument. The first sentence describes an opposition (Although): it begins with a factual premise but ends with a contradicting judgment - the conclusion. The second sentence is a premise which supports the conclusion:

Premise A: Sellalot Inc. has lots of traffic through its website
 +
Premise B: The website is poor and puts off many of the company's potential customers
 =
Conclusion: The abundant traffic on Sellalot's website is actually damaging the company

Vital factor: ?

You are required to find the factor which is most crucial to the analyst's conclusion. The correct answer is a question which could support or weaken the conclusion depending on its answer.

This answer choice attempts to provide a solution to the problem presented by the analyst. However, Sellalot's capacity to solve the problem does not help us evaluate whether abundant traffic is, as the analyst claims, the root of the problem.

B. Whether the great majority of traffic is new visitors or existing customers using the website services

The analyst concludes that the abundant traffic damages the company because Sellalot's inferior website deters people from becoming Sellalot's customers. In other words, the more new visitors pass through the website, the more potential customers are lost.

If most of the traffic is that of new visitors, then the analyst may be right; however, if most of the traffic is of existing customers who are using the website, then this abundant traffic is not a problem.

C. Whether the number of new visitors who do not become customers is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website

Incorrect.

To solve this Investigation question, first break down the argument. The first sentence describes an opposition (Although): it begins with a factual premise but ends with a contradicting judgment - the conclusion. The second sentence is a premise which supports the conclusion:

Premise A: Sellalot Inc. has lots of traffic through its website
 +
Premise B: The website is poor and puts off many of the company's potential customers
 =
Conclusion: The abundant traffic on Sellalot's website is actually damaging the company

Vital factor: ?

You are required to find the factor which is most crucial to the analyst's conclusion. The correct answer is a question which could support or weaken the conclusion depending on its answer.

The factor suggested in this answer choice is not enough to evaluate the analyst's claim, as it only represents one side of the coin - the lost customers. We do not know whether the number of gained customers is also proportionate to the number of visitors (and in what proportion), so we cannot determine whether the abundant traffic is damaging to the company or not.

D. Whether the number of new customers generated by the website is directly proportionate to the number of visitors on the website

Incorrect.

The factor suggested in this answer choice is not enough to evaluate the analyst's claim, as it only represents one side of the coin - the gained customers. We do not know whether the number of lost customers is also proportionate to the number of visitors (and in what proportion), so we cannot determine whether the abundant traffic is damaging to the company or not.

E. Whether the potential earnings from lost customers exceed the website's earning

Incorrect.

This answer choice is irrelevant to the evaluation of the argument as it is presented. This factor has no bearing on whether the website is damaging the company, because any potential customer that is lost can be considered as damaging, regardless of earnings. More importantly, this cannot help us determine whether the abundant traffic is the cause for the website problem, as suggested by the analyst.

Website Optimization Analyst: Although the website of Sellalot Inc.

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

Website Optimization Analyst: Although the website of Sellalot Inc.

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