Critical Reasoning

There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet market, which is tied to the size of the population. Most who purchase carpet do so only once or twice, first in their twenties or thirties, and then perhaps again in their fifties or sixties. Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.

Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?

(A) Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
(B) Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no re-maining niche in the market for new brands to fill.
(C) Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly merged companies.
(D) Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
(E) The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new pat-terns and styles.

Please explain your reasoning

What is the source of this question? The answer is D by very questionable reasoning. I am going to guess and say this is a CR 1000 question. Could you please let us know?

Thanks,

Jared

Source : LSAT tests

OA is D

Can somebody explain why A is wrong and D is right ?

paes wrote:Source : LSAT tests

OA is D

Can somebody explain why A is wrong and D is right ?

Interesting question.. Will wait for the responses..

My first thought was A too..

for me it was always D...

A is introducing a new term "floor coverings" which has nothing to do with the given stem...

we have to weaken the conclusion that "companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing"

only D does that...all other options are out of scope...

regards,
Deutsch750

dream700 wrote:for me it was always D...

A is introducing a new term "floor coverings" which has nothing to do with the given stem...

we have to weaken the conclusion that "companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing"

only D does that...all other options are out of scope...

regards,
Deutsch750

For a weaken question, outside information is welcome.

paes wrote:Source : LSAT tests

OA is D

Can somebody explain why A is wrong and D is right ?

Conclusion: carpet producing companies will be able to gain market share competitors as the population ages, and not through more aggressive marketing strategy.

For X and not Y is can cause...questions, options which says X is possible or Y is impossible are only correct options for supporting and Vice Versa for Weakning.

D over here:

Price Reduction or Cost-cutting(X), which is also a Agressive Marketing Strategy, has caused some effect on other companies. Hence we can say Agrresive Marketing strategy works and carpet producing companies don't have to wait for population ages to gain market share.

For A: Though major carpet Producers market other floor coverings, but here the conclusion is whether market share can be gained by Population Ages only and not by agressive marketing.

In short the conclusion is about Method of achiving, not possible to achive by other way or not. Hence A is INCORRECT.

Hope that heps!!

Hi Sonu ,

you said :
Price Reduction or Cost-cutting(X), which is also a Agressive Marketing Strategy .
Does the argument say this ? Can we assume this ?

786 wrote:Hi Sonu ,

you said :
Price Reduction or Cost-cutting(X), which is also a Agressive Marketing Strategy .
Does the argument say this ? Can we assume this ?

Certainly, we have too. There is no other option focusing on Method to gain market share for which conclusion is based.

paes wrote:There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet market, which is tied to the size of the population. Most who purchase carpet do so only once or twice, first in their fifties or sixties. Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.

Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?

(A) Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
(B) Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no re-maining niche in the market for new brands to fill.
(C) Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly merged companies.
(D) Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
(E) The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new pat-terns and styles.

Please explain your reasoning

Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.

When I was reading the passage, the last sentence sounded really awkward to me. When I searched for this CR, I found that some part of the last sentence(highlighted above in bold) is missing in your post.

Refer this link. It has a good explanation: https://www.beatthegmat.com/weaken-the-a ... 47501.html

Hope that helps..

Thanks Jadeja. I modified the question.