Gerrit: While browsing in a record store I noticed that one

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:34 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:4 members
Gerrit: While browsing in a record store I noticed that one copy of a recording I wanted had mistakenly been priced at a quarter of the list price. When I finally reached the cashier I was told that the price had been mismarked and I would have to pay the full list price. Since I had wasted an hour standing in line, the retailer was morally obligated to sell me the recording at the lower price.

Saskia: I disagree. You knew that a mistake had been made, and you were simply trying to take advantage of that mistake.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would most help to justify Saskia's position?

(A) The price displayed on an item in a retail store morally constitutes an irrevocable offer to sell the item at that price.

(B) Customers of retail stores are morally entitled to profit from any mistakes that the retailers make in marking prices.

(C) Retailers are morally entitled to update marked prices periodically in order to reflect changes in manufacturers' suggested prices.

(D) Retailers are morally obligated to meet expectations about prices that they have intentionally encouraged their customers to hold.

(E) Retailers are morally obligated to sell an item to a customer at a mismarked price only if that customer was genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking.

OA=E

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Global
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:770

by elias.latour.apex » Mon May 01, 2017 9:52 am
As always, we should start by reading the question, which asks: "Which of the following principles, if established, would most help to justify Saskia's position?"

This is a strengthen/support question. We must first identify Saskia's position. Her conclusion is contained in the phrase "I disagree." However, without a better understanding of the argument, this is not enough. We must go looking for the content of the conclusion.

Since she disagrees with Gerrit's statement "the retailer was morally obligated to sell me the recording at the lower price" the content of her conclusion must be "The retailer was not morally obligated to sell him the recording at the lower price." Why? Because Garrit knew that a mistake had been made.

What's the connection between those two statements? We can see that there are new, surprising words contained in the content of her conclusion that are not mentioned in her premises. Her premise says that Garrit knew a mistake had been made, but her conclusion is talking about moral obligations (or lack of same).

There must be an assumption that bridges that gap. The assumption must contain the concept "moral obligation" and "knowledge of a mistake" otherwise it will not bridge the gap. Accordingly, the assumption must be that the seller has no moral obligation to sell an item at a mismarked price unless that customer really does not know that a mistake has been made.

Accordingly, answer choice (E), which explicitly states the assumption, is the best choice.
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622