Critical Reasoning

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, even Zachary, Inc. does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend: despite the aforementioned increase, Zachary, Inc. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

A) The sales of clothing at Zachary, Inc.'s boutique stores, which, unlike department stores, are owned and operated by the company itself, have held steady over the last two years.

B) Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half.

C) Zachary, Inc. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to other manufacturers of men's clothing.

D) Zachary, Inc. formerly manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to men's clothing, but, for the past three years, the company has produced only men's clothing.

E) In the last two years, the percentage of Zachary, Inc.'s clothing sold by department stores at discounted prices has been unusually high, a result that analysts have blamed on the sluggish economy.

my concern : some where the OA does not seem to be convincing

how does C explain that Zachary, Inc experienced a increase in its brand of men's clothing ? the fact that Zachary, Inc is selling its fabric to other companies may explain that its revenue can increase but increase in its sale of men's clothing is a different issue

can some expert plz explain
thanks and regards

Are you sure the answer is C? Looks a lot more like E. A mix shift away from regularly priced clothes would explain sales going up at department stores, but staying roughly flat for Z as a whole.

Option C could explain a bit why Z's oversll sales are still roughly flat, while other co's sales are down, but it does not explain at all the 'surprising result' namely that sales of Z manufactured items at department stores are up so much more than industry's.

Kind Regards,

Misterholmes

aditya8062 wrote:For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, even Zachary, Inc. does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend: despite the aforementioned increase, Zachary, Inc. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

A) The sales of clothing at Zachary, Inc.'s boutique stores, which, unlike department stores, are owned and operated by the company itself, have held steady over the last two years.

B) Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half.

C) Zachary, Inc. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to other manufacturers of men's clothing.

D) Zachary, Inc. formerly manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to men's clothing, but, for the past three years, the company has produced only men's clothing.

E) In the last two years, the percentage of Zachary, Inc.'s clothing sold by department stores at discounted prices has been unusually high, a result that analysts have blamed on the sluggish economy.

FACT 1: Sales of Zachary, Inc.'s MEN'S CLOTHING have INCREASED.
FACT 2: Zachary, Inc. has reported a DECREASE in OVERALL sales.

There is only one way for Zachary's Inc.'s OVERALL SALES to have decreased while its sales of men's clothing have increased: Zachary, Inc. must manufacturer ANOTHER PRODUCT WHOSE SALES HAVE DECREASED, offsetting the increase in the company's sales of men's clothing.

Answer choice C: Zachary, Inc. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to other manufacturers of men's clothing.
Since the sales of OTHER BRANDS of men's clothing have been depressed, other manufacturers of men's clothing likely are ordering smaller quantities of Zachary, Inc.'s fabrics, explaining why there has been a decrease in Zachary, Inc.'s OVERALL SALES.

The correct answer C.

E does explain very well how Z's overall sales could be sluggish, but is that what the question is asking?

I submit that we were asked to explain the "surprising result." Which result is that?

The text notes the 50% jump in sales of Z at department stores, then names that jump as a result, and then calls it surprising, which leads me to think of it as a surprising result. Answer E explains how sales of Z manufactured items, which btw is not the same as Z's sales, could be up at department stores though others' are down.

But I agree with Mitch that there is another paradox embedded in the text, which C explains.

Is this an OG question?

Kind Regards,

Misterholmes

i somehow get a feeling that surprising result is referring to the first surprising thing which is mentioned in the passage because that is what is explicitly mentioned as surprising .
will that analysis be wrong ?

surprising result:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period.

aditya8062 wrote:i somehow get a feeling that surprising result is referring to the first surprising thing which is mentioned in the passage because that is what is explicitly mentioned as surprising .
will that analysis be wrong ?

surprising result:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period.

Your interpretation of the question stem:
Why has ZACHARY, INC. seen an INCREASE in sales of its men's clothing, while ALL OTHER BRANDS of men's clothing have seen a DECREASE in sales?
To answer this question, the correct answer would show need to show how Zachary, Inc. DIFFERS from all other brands.
For example:
While most men's clothing is sold primarily in high-end stores, many of which have closed down because of the recent recession, Zachary, Inc.'s men's clothing is sold primarily in discount stores, which have greatly increased in number over the past two years.
No answer choice offers this sort of distinction between Zachary, Inc. and other manufacturers.

Thus, we must interpret the question stem as I did in my post above.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

aditya8062 wrote:i somehow get a feeling that surprising result is referring to the first surprising thing which is mentioned in the passage because that is what is explicitly mentioned as surprising .
will that analysis be wrong ?

surprising result:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period.

Your interpretation of the question stem:
Why has ZACHARY, INC. seen an INCREASE in sales of its men's clothing, while ALL OTHER BRANDS of men's clothing have seen a DECREASE in sales?
To answer this question, the correct answer would show need to show how Zachary, Inc. DIFFERS from all other brands.
For example:
While most men's clothing is sold primarily in high-end stores, many of which have closed down because of the recent recession, Zachary, Inc.'s men's clothing is sold primarily in discount stores, which have greatly increased in number over the past two years.
No answer choice offers this sort of distinction between Zachary, Inc. and other manufacturers.

Thus, we must interpret the question stem as I did in my post above.

Hello Mitch,

Doesn't answer B 'Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half' explains the distinction between Zachary and other manufactures?

HAmjad wrote:Hello Mitch,

Doesn't answer B 'Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half' explains the distinction between Zachary and other manufactures?

If the goal were to explain why Zachary's sales have increased while the sales of other manufacturers have decreased, the following passage would be sufficient:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

But the passage includes FAR MORE INFORMATION, as follows:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, even Zachary, Inc. does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend: despite the aforementioned increase, Zachary, Inc. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

The purpose of the portion in red -- fully HALF THE PASSAGE -- is to express a result that seems in opposition to the first half of the passage.
Implication:
The question stem must be asking us to explain how the red portion can be true (Zachary's overall sales are DOWN), while the previous portion is also true (sales of Zachary's men's clothing are UP).
Answer choice B does not explain how both of these facts can be true at the same time.

I came across a slightly different version of this problem while writing my MGMAT. Not sure if there were issues with the original one or if this is merely a better version.

It goes as follows:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their revenue generated from the sale of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, Z.A.C., the parent company of Zachary Inc, does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend of decreased sales in the industry: Z.A.C. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

A) The sales of clothing at Zachary, Inc.'s boutique stores, which, unlike department stores, are owned and operated by the company itself, have held steady over the last two years.
B) Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half.
C) Z.A.C. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to a variety of manufacturers of men's clothing.
D) Zachary, Inc. formerly manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to men's clothing, but, for the past three years, the company has produced only men's clothing.
E) In the last two years, Z.A.C., in addition to maintaining its prior business ventures, expanded into two new markets, neither of which has been particularly profitable thus far.


I don't understand why (B) fails to explain the paradox. Since we are concerned with explaining an increase in revenue/sales (not profits or overspending of planned budget), (B) should be adequate in explaining the increased revenue of Zachary. It explains that by virtue of the advertising campaign ( which caused Zachary to overspend its budget and about which we should not really be concerned since, at best, the campaign involves budget and profits, not sales). The advertising campaign may have caused Zachary to overspend but helps explain improved sales. (B) explains why Zachary stood out (the surprising result) while the others had poor sales and revenues. (B) Also takes in to account the two year time frame unlike some of the other choices. Since we are concerned with sales and revenue, budget would be beside the point.

(C) , on the the other hand, merely explains why Z.A.C had low sales like the rest of the others. We need an explanation for why the sales of Zachary Inc. was outstanding/surprising while the sales of others (including rest of Z.A.C) was just plain low.

After all the sales of Zachary Inc. is the outlier here. (C) just states one possible reason why Z.A.C has low sales like that of the others. In fact are we not better off explaining an unusual occurrence?

To put it another way:
Category1: Who had sales (Zachary Inc.)
Category2: Those who had low sales i.e everyone else (Including parent Z.A.C)
We would not want to explain why Z.A.C belongs to category 2. Instead, we explain why Zachary belongs to category 1.
In that case choice (B) ought to do the job.

Experts, please comment.

TheGraduate wrote:I came across a slightly different version of this problem while writing my MGMAT. Not sure if there were issues with the original one or if this is merely a better version.

It goes as follows:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their revenue generated from the sale of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, Z.A.C., the parent company of Zachary Inc, does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend of decreased sales in the industry: Z.A.C. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

A) The sales of clothing at Zachary, Inc.'s boutique stores, which, unlike department stores, are owned and operated by the company itself, have held steady over the last two years.
B) Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half.
C) Z.A.C. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to a variety of manufacturers of men's clothing.
D) Zachary, Inc. formerly manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to men's clothing, but, for the past three years, the company has produced only men's clothing.
E) In the last two years, Z.A.C., in addition to maintaining its prior business ventures, expanded into two new markets, neither of which has been particularly profitable thus far.


I don't understand why (B) fails to explain the paradox. Since we are concerned with explaining an increase in revenue/sales (not profits or overspending of planned budget), (B) should be adequate in explaining the increased revenue of Zachary. It explains that by virtue of the advertising campaign ( which caused Zachary to overspend its budget and about which we should not really be concerned since, at best, the campaign involves budget and profits, not sales). The advertising campaign may have caused Zachary to overspend but helps explain improved sales. (B) explains why Zachary stood out (the surprising result) while the others had poor sales and revenues. (B) Also takes in to account the two year time frame unlike some of the other choices. Since we are concerned with sales and revenue, budget would be beside the point.

(C) , on the the other hand, merely explains why Z.A.C had low sales like the rest of the others. We need an explanation for why the sales of Zachary Inc. was outstanding/surprising while the sales of others (including rest of Z.A.C) was just plain low.

After all the sales of Zachary Inc. is the outlier here. (C) just states one possible reason why Z.A.C has low sales like that of the others. In fact are we not better off explaining an unusual occurrence?

To put it another way:
Category1: Who had sales (Zachary Inc.)
Category2: Those who had low sales i.e everyone else (Including parent Z.A.C)
We would not want to explain why Z.A.C belongs to category 2. Instead, we explain why Zachary belongs to category 1.
In that case choice (B) ought to do the job.

Experts, please comment.

This question could be better written, but the "surprising result" mentioned in the question is the difference between the sales of Zachary, Inc. men's clothing and the sales of the parent company Z.A.C.

B may, or may not explain the increase in sales of Zachary, Inc. men's clothing, but even if it does explain the increase, it does not explain why even with the Zachary, Inc. sales increase, Z.A.C. saw a decrease in sales.

Does B say that Z.A.C. has other divisions? Does B explain that Z.A.C. sells things other than men's clothing?

For all we know Zachary, Inc. is the only subsidiary of Z.A.C.

C does explain that Z.A.C. has things other than Zachary, Inc. going on, and that is the reason why even though Zachary, Inc.'s sales are up Z.A.C.'s sales are down.

I think that you assumed that Z.A.C. has clothing related divisions other than Zachary, Inc., whereas without C there is no evidence that such an assumption is warranted.

TheGraduate wrote:I came across a slightly different version of this problem while writing my MGMAT. Not sure if there were issues with the original one or if this is merely a better version.

It goes as follows:

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their revenue generated from the sale of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, Z.A.C., the parent company of Zachary Inc, does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend of decreased sales in the industry: Z.A.C. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

A) The sales of clothing at Zachary, Inc.'s boutique stores, which, unlike department stores, are owned and operated by the company itself, have held steady over the last two years.
B) Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half.
C) Z.A.C. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to a variety of manufacturers of men's clothing.
D) Zachary, Inc. formerly manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to men's clothing, but, for the past three years, the company has produced only men's clothing.
E) In the last two years, Z.A.C., in addition to maintaining its prior business ventures, expanded into two new markets, neither of which has been particularly profitable thus far.


I don't understand why (B) fails to explain the paradox. Since we are concerned with explaining an increase in revenue/sales (not profits or overspending of planned budget), (B) should be adequate in explaining the increased revenue of Zachary. It explains that by virtue of the advertising campaign ( which caused Zachary to overspend its budget and about which we should not really be concerned since, at best, the campaign involves budget and profits, not sales). The advertising campaign may have caused Zachary to overspend but helps explain improved sales. (B) explains why Zachary stood out (the surprising result) while the others had poor sales and revenues. (B) Also takes in to account the two year time frame unlike some of the other choices. Since we are concerned with sales and revenue, budget would be beside the point.

(C) , on the the other hand, merely explains why Z.A.C had low sales like the rest of the others. We need an explanation for why the sales of Zachary Inc. was outstanding/surprising while the sales of others (including rest of Z.A.C) was just plain low.

After all the sales of Zachary Inc. is the outlier here. (C) just states one possible reason why Z.A.C has low sales like that of the others. In fact are we not better off explaining an unusual occurrence?

To put it another way:
Category1: Who had sales (Zachary Inc.)
Category2: Those who had low sales i.e everyone else (Including parent Z.A.C)
We would not want to explain why Z.A.C belongs to category 2. Instead, we explain why Zachary belongs to category 1.
In that case choice (B) ought to do the job.

Experts, please comment.

Marty Murray wrote: This question could be better written, but the "surprising result" mentioned in the question is the difference between the sales of Zachary, Inc. men's clothing and the sales of the parent company Z.A.C.

B may, or may not explain the increase in sales of Zachary, Inc. men's clothing, but even if it does explain the increase, it does not explain why even with the Zachary, Inc. sales increase, Z.A.C. saw a decrease in sales.

Does B say that Z.A.C. has other divisions? Does B explain that Z.A.C. sells things other than men's clothing?

For all we know Zachary, Inc. is the only subsidiary of Z.A.C.

C does explain that Z.A.C. has things other than Zachary, Inc. going on, and that is the reason why even though Zachary, Inc.'s sales are up Z.A.C.'s sales are down.

I think that you assumed that Z.A.C. has clothing related divisions other than Zachary, Inc., whereas without C there is no evidence that such an assumption is warranted.

Hi Marty.
Thanks for the prompt reply that has cleared most of my doubts.

However, there are a few issues.

First: There seems to an ambiguity in what exactly the surprising result is.
Surprising result (i)

For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their revenue generated from the sale of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period.

B seems to do a good job in explaining the above.

Surprising result (ii)

Z.A.C. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

i.e. Why Z.A.C experienced a decrease in sales even though its subsidiary(ies) experienced a increase.

Of course, as you pointed out, we don't know the status of its other subsidiaries (if are any at all) and probably shouldn't assume there ought to be any.

If we consider that Z.A.C had no subsidiaries other than Zachary, then C is the best option just as you explained.

Second: Actually, I did assume that Z.A.C had clothing related divisions other than Zachary, Inc..
Since we have to assume some kind of a framework to go ahead with our reasoning, I assumed the more general case where the parent had more than one subsidiary.
However, considering critical reasoning questions in general, if we come across a scenario in which we are forced to choose between two possible assumptions, what are we to do?
In this case we can argue for assuming multiple subsidiaries saying that it is a more general case or argue against choosing any subsidiary other than Zachary Inc. saying it outside the scope of the question.

Please provide your feedback.

TheGraduate wrote:If we consider that Z.A.C had no subsidiaries other than Zachary, then C is the best option just as you explained.

Second: Actually, I did assume that Z.A.C had clothing related divisions other than Zachary, Inc..
Since we have to assume some kind of a framework to go ahead with our reasoning, I assumed the more general case where the parent had more than one subsidiary.
However, considering critical reasoning questions in general, if we come across a scenario in which we are forced to choose between two possible assumptions, what are we to do?
In this case we can argue for assuming multiple subsidiaries saying that it is a more general case or argue against choosing any subsidiary other than Zachary Inc. saying it outside the scope of the question.

Please provide your feedback.

I think you went to far in assuming that Z.A.C. has other clothing divisions. Even if you make the call that Z.A.C. has other subsidiaries, they could be in other industries.

Yes, you can come to reasonable conclusions about the scenarios of CR questions. However, those conclusions have to be pretty tightly logically supported by the information provided in the prompt, and in this case the prompt does not really support either the idea that Z.A.C. has multiple subsidiaries - parent companies often do not - or the conclusion that Z.A.C. has other clothing related subsidiaries.

If a question is about a "men's clothing company", you can conclude that the company sells men's clothes, and you can assume that the things like the laws of supply and demand hold. In other words, you can go with the idea that people will do normal things like choosing whether to purchase items by considering price and quality.

However, if a question is about a parent company, you can't conclude that the company has multiple subsidiaries, as some parent companies do and some don't.

Meanwhile, overall, except in rare cases in which even GMAC comes up with slightly flawed questions, you won't have to guess what to conclude, and really I don't think I have seen an official question that is flawed in such a way as to require guessing something as significant as whether a parent company has a single subsidiary or multiple subsidiaries. So, the information provided in official questions will pretty much always be sufficient for making a solid call regarding anything relevant.

TheGraduate wrote:I don't understand why (B) fails to explain the paradox. Since we are concerned with explaining an increase in revenue/sales (not profits or overspending of planned budget), (B) should be adequate in explaining the increased revenue of Zachary. It explains that by virtue of the advertising campaign ( which caused Zachary to overspend its budget and about which we should not really be concerned since, at best, the campaign involves budget and profits, not sales). The advertising campaign may have caused Zachary to overspend but helps explain improved sales. (B) explains why Zachary stood out (the surprising result) while the others had poor sales and revenues.

B offers no information to explain the statement in red.
While an ambitious advertising campaign could explain the increase in sales of ZAC's menswear, it does not explain why sales of most other brands declined.

(C) , on the the other hand, merely explains why Z.A.C had low sales like the rest of the others. We need an explanation for why the sales of Zachary Inc. was outstanding/surprising while the sales of others (including rest of Z.A.C) was just plain low.

After all the sales of Zachary Inc. is the outlier here. (C) just states one possible reason why Z.A.C has low sales like that of the others. In fact are we not better off explaining an unusual occurrence?

To put it another way:
Category1: Who had sales (Zachary Inc.)
Category2: Those who had low sales i.e everyone else (Including parent Z.A.C)
We would not want to explain why Z.A.C belongs to category 2. Instead, we explain why Zachary belongs to category 1.
In that case choice (B) ought to do the job.

Experts, please comment.

Generally, the paradox in a resolve/explain CR will be marked by a term of contrast such as but, yet, however, despite, etc.:
X is true, BUT Y is also true.
X is true, YET Y is also true.
X is true. HOWEVER, Y is also true.
X is true, DESPITE Y.

In the CR above, the term of contrast is nevertheless:
Major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their revenue generated from the sale of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc.
NEVERTHELESS, Z.A.C., the parent company of Zachary Inc, has reported a slight decline in overall sales.
The correct answer choice must explain how both of these facts can be true at the same time.

As discussed in my post above, C explains why ZAC's overall sales declined, despite the increase in sales of ZAC's menswear.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

aditya8062 wrote:For each of the past two years, major department stores have reported a nearly 50% increase in their sales of men's clothing manufactured by Zachary, Inc., a result that is all the more surprising because the sales of most other brands of men's clothing have been depressed over the same period. Nevertheless, even Zachary, Inc. does not appear to have emerged unscathed from the overall trend: despite the aforementioned increase, Zachary, Inc. has reported a slight decline in overall sales in each of the past two years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising result above?

A) The sales of clothing at Zachary, Inc.'s boutique stores, which, unlike department stores, are owned and operated by the company itself, have held steady over the last two years.

B) Two years ago, Zachary, Inc. began an ambitious new advertising campaign; in each of the last two years, the company's advertising department has overspent its planned budget by almost half.

C) Zachary, Inc. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to other manufacturers of men's clothing.

D) Zachary, Inc. formerly manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to men's clothing, but, for the past three years, the company has produced only men's clothing.

E) In the last two years, the percentage of Zachary, Inc.'s clothing sold by department stores at discounted prices has been unusually high, a result that analysts have blamed on the sluggish economy.

FACT 1: Sales of Zachary, Inc.'s MEN'S CLOTHING have INCREASED.
FACT 2: Zachary, Inc. has reported a DECREASE in OVERALL sales.

There is only one way for Zachary's Inc.'s OVERALL SALES to have decreased while its sales of men's clothing have increased: Zachary, Inc. must manufacturer ANOTHER PRODUCT WHOSE SALES HAVE DECREASED, offsetting the increase in the company's sales of men's clothing.

Answer choice C: Zachary, Inc. is renowned for the quality of its fabrics, and sells large quantities of fabric to other manufacturers of men's clothing.
Since the sales of OTHER BRANDS of men's clothing have been depressed, other manufacturers of men's clothing likely are ordering smaller quantities of Zachary, Inc.'s fabrics, explaining why there has been a decrease in Zachary, Inc.'s OVERALL SALES.

The correct answer C.

Dear GMATGuru,

Can you please shed light why choice D is incorrect?

Thanks

Mo2men wrote:Dear GMATGuru,

Can you please shed light why choice D is incorrect?

Thanks

D indicates that -- OVER THREE YEARS AGO -- ZAC manufactured leather accessories and women's clothing in addition to menswear.
But the correct answer choice must explain why ZAC has reported a decline in overall sales IN EACH OF THE PAST TWO YEARS.
Since ZAC did not manufacture leather accessories and women's clothing two years ago, the information in D does not explain why overall sales declined in each of the past two years.
Eliminate D.