|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
30 Jan 2022, 15:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazette to grocery stores in the Marston area:
“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales. Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Argument, as part of a promotional campaign, argue that advertising the reduced price of selected products in the Daily Gazette should increase sales of grocery stores in the Marston area. In order to support its claim, argument cites a study conducted on a downtown's store in which 200 consumers buying one or more of discounted products respond affirmative on being asked whether shopper has read the ad and few of these consumers spent over $100 at the store. This line of reasoning is flawed for several reasons.
First, argument unwarrantedly assumes that the store for which study is conducted is typical of all stores in Marston, whereas the store under study, being located in downtown, is accessible to patrons with relatively high purchasing power, and thus it cannot be representative of all stores in Marston, some of which may be either located in suburbs or catering to lower middle-class consumers. Argument fails to consider other factors, such as average daily foot-falls, products offered, availability of parking space, etc., that may influence the sales number of a store. Hence, it seems an overstatement that stores will be benefitted by advertising discounted products in the Daily Gazette. Had the argument limited its conclusion to the stores in downtown, it would still have made a convincing case.
Second, argument seeks to establish a causal relation between spending more than $100 and buying one or more of the advertised product by asserting that, out of 200 consumers who purchased one or more of the 30 items advertised in the Daily Gazette, approximately 130 have read the advertisement and more than half of these 130 shoppers have spent over $100 at this store. However, correlation does not imply causation. For instance, if average spending at this store is $100 per consumer, then these consumers have spent just the average amount which otherwise also they could have spent. Therefore, argument draws untenably strong conclusion that advertising in the Daily Gazette will help in increasing the sales. In order to substantiate its claim, argument could have compared sales during the month in which study is undertaken to that of previous month so as to determine the increase in sales caused by advertising in the Daily Gazette.
Since argument draws broad conclusion from inconclusive evidences, it is substantially flawed. Argument is neither persuasive nor sound and fails to convey any compelling reasons for stores in Marston to advertise in the Daily Gazette.
“Advertising the reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazette will help you increase your sales. Consider the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazette for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two-thirds of the 200 shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customers who answered in the affirmative spent over $100 at the store.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Argument, as part of a promotional campaign, argue that advertising the reduced price of selected products in the Daily Gazette should increase sales of grocery stores in the Marston area. In order to support its claim, argument cites a study conducted on a downtown's store in which 200 consumers buying one or more of discounted products respond affirmative on being asked whether shopper has read the ad and few of these consumers spent over $100 at the store. This line of reasoning is flawed for several reasons.
First, argument unwarrantedly assumes that the store for which study is conducted is typical of all stores in Marston, whereas the store under study, being located in downtown, is accessible to patrons with relatively high purchasing power, and thus it cannot be representative of all stores in Marston, some of which may be either located in suburbs or catering to lower middle-class consumers. Argument fails to consider other factors, such as average daily foot-falls, products offered, availability of parking space, etc., that may influence the sales number of a store. Hence, it seems an overstatement that stores will be benefitted by advertising discounted products in the Daily Gazette. Had the argument limited its conclusion to the stores in downtown, it would still have made a convincing case.
Second, argument seeks to establish a causal relation between spending more than $100 and buying one or more of the advertised product by asserting that, out of 200 consumers who purchased one or more of the 30 items advertised in the Daily Gazette, approximately 130 have read the advertisement and more than half of these 130 shoppers have spent over $100 at this store. However, correlation does not imply causation. For instance, if average spending at this store is $100 per consumer, then these consumers have spent just the average amount which otherwise also they could have spent. Therefore, argument draws untenably strong conclusion that advertising in the Daily Gazette will help in increasing the sales. In order to substantiate its claim, argument could have compared sales during the month in which study is undertaken to that of previous month so as to determine the increase in sales caused by advertising in the Daily Gazette.
Since argument draws broad conclusion from inconclusive evidences, it is substantially flawed. Argument is neither persuasive nor sound and fails to convey any compelling reasons for stores in Marston to advertise in the Daily Gazette.
30 Jan 2022, 22:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please follow AWA rules before posting in the same forum; click on the link below to read the rules
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Regards
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Regards
manpreet0511
Moderator:
