BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Trusave Shipping

Expert replies
by schumi_gmat » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:50 pm
TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to
customers worldwide. The company’s shipping manager is proposing that customer
orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate
damage during shipping. The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain
unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current
cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged
condition.
Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether
implementing the shipping manager’s proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?
A. Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring
damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
B. Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most
other products shipped by mail-order companies
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage
already present when those items were packed for shipping
D. Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product
damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later
E. Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping
companies it uses to ship products to its customers

OA D
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Answer: C

by priyanka.upponi » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:28 pm
Hi,

In my opinion, the answer is C.

Regards,
Priyanka Upponi.
Beat The GMAT...
Join the discussion

by stubbornp » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:07 pm
imo D
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:18 pm
tis is close,.,

C or D,,,

imo D

as it talks abt thgs after shipping done,,,,,..
Join the discussion

by stubbornp » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:32 pm
imo D
Join the discussion

explain ur ans

by preetha_85 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:56 pm
stubbornp wrote:imo D
Could u explain... ?
coz imo c since how will it make a diff to the cost of the company if the customer blames himself for the damaged product
Join the discussion

by kandyhot27 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:02 pm
IMO C
If customers are returning items even though they did not get damaged in the transit....this won't change if we went to better packing scenario and hence no gains in costs

OA ?
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:49 pm
stimulus says:
The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain
unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.

In my opinion , the main point of discussion is about the products that are returned by the customers because the product got damage during shipping.

C says,
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping.

That means if damage is already there,then it would not be able to determine if the damage is done during shipping or was already there during the time of packin.
It wont be helpful in determining if the the new packing material is benificial and thus cost effective,
Join the discussion

by preetha_85 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:05 am
raunekk wrote:stimulus says:

C says,
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping.

That means if damage is already there,then it would not be able to determine if the damage is done during shipping or was already there during the time of packin.
It wont be helpful in determining if the the new packing material is benificial and thus cost effective,
does this not mean that the products were already damaged even before they were packed and therfore if a sizeable portion were returned coz of this theres no pont spending on new packaging material
Join the discussion

by rohangupta83 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:51 am
C and D both seem logical

i would have gone for C
Join the discussion

by SYim » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:08 am
IMO C
Join the discussion

by schumi_gmat » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:35 am
Thanks guys for the explanation.

My doubt is with the question stem which says
The manager proposal has a for/positive effect on the cost?

IMO A which was wrong as per reference. According to me, the for effect in the cost will be beneficial if we show that exisitng packaging damages during shipping and new packaging will help to reduce the returns.

If the items are already damaged then what is the point in having a better package? People are anyways going to return but not because of packaging.

Hence i had chosen A.
Join the discussion

by Arunlal » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:37 pm
Couldnt understand the qn as well as the answer.
can someone help me with an explantion.

Thanks
-Arun
Join the discussion

by Bidisha800 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:59 pm
(C)
Drill baby drill !

GMATPowerPrep Test1= 740
GMATPowerPrep Test2= 760
Kaplan Diagnostic Test= 700
Kaplan Test1=600
Kalplan Test2=670
Kalplan Test3=570
Join the discussion

by suhas » Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:07 am
the assumption of the argument is: "good items are packed for shipping, and they get damaged after shipping, that is during transit".
A) A does not validate assumption - items may be vulnerable but what if shipping agency takes extra care while handling it.
B) does not substantiate assumption, answers only 50% of truth - more electronic products may get damaged in transit, but we want to know whether they are damaged before packing them for shipping, and what is the proportion of the goods that is damaged in transit and the goods that is already damaged before packaging it?
C) substantiates assumption in correct form
D/E) irrelevant
Join the discussion