B

OA pLz

karthikpandian19 wrote:Melvin's Electronics sells audio equipment and faces stiff competition from the big box store Gigamart. Wholesale products make up 45% of total costs for both stores. Melvin's Electronics is constantly seeking to gain a competitive advantage. Therefore, they should consider switching to a cheaper wholesaler.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

Argument: To gain competitive advantage, Melvin's should consider using a cheaper wholesaler.

(A) Because their workers are heavily unionized, Melvin's Electronics cannot cut wages or lay off workers.
This does not really affect our argument. At a stretch, it slightly strengthens it by saying that Melvin's can't cut wages or lay off people to reduce costs. No.

(B) The products distributed by the cheaper wholesaler are inferior in quality and would lead to reduced sales.
If using a cheaper wholesaler reduces sales, it may lead to losing the very edge in competition that Melvin's is trying to attain. Hence, it this is true, it weakens the argument. CORRECT.

(C) Melvin's Electronics has lost over 25% of its business to Gigamart in the past year.
Out of scope. If anything, this shows a case for why competitive advantage is important to Melvin's. No.

(D) Melvin's Electronics currently pays approximately 15% more for its wholesale products than Gigamart does.
Again, it makes a case for strengthening the argument rather than weakening it. No.

(E) Many electronics retailers are located a great distance away from the factories that produce their wholesale products.
So what? This is irrelevant to the argument.

Hence B should be correct.

OA is B

This time i got it right