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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

manufacturing processes

Expert replies
by ranell » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:29 pm
Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant.

Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial benefit of new manufacturing processes?

A. The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty.
B. In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing money to pay for the investment.
C. Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the manufacturing process.
D. Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not.
E. The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by SanjeevK » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:55 pm
IMO[spoiler] C:[/spoiler]
C clearly points out that even though we consider the costs, selling prices, and share of market constant and evaluate the result of making investment vs not making investment, the results might not give the clear picture. For example, the results might show that there is a net gain with the cost-cutting process whereas it might take many years to actually realize the gain.
We are assuming the costs, selling prices, and share of market to be constant. Eliminate A and D.
Interest rate and period of year is not a factor here. Eliminate B and E.
Join the discussion

by ranell » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:24 pm
I also would go with C on the real test, but the A is D. Please explain me the reason.
Join the discussion

by lily164 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:11 pm
The text says the comparison [the project results of new processes with those of the alternatives] really works if the alternatives are assumed to remain the constant share of market. So this method seems disadvantage if there are factors that make the alternatives' share of market change. (D) states the investors in new processes might cause the share of market of alternatives to decrease. I go for D.


Other explanations please if I am wrong!
Join the discussion

by SanjeevK » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:26 am
Thanks Lily. You are right. Option D attacks the very assumption of constant share of market.
Join the discussion

by yogami » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:54 pm
Yup, agree with lily. D is it. The question asks what would weaken the company's methodology. Not what would weaken the company's plan in investing for the new processes. And the methodology clearly depends upon the market share, etc etc. If those parameters change then how are they going to compare the two costs? And D clearly tells us that those parameters can change thus weakening the company's methodology.
200 or 800. It don't matter no more.
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:36 pm
IMO - D
Join the discussion

by turbo jet » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:00 am
Again a very good qs ranell

IMO: D


A: Contradicts the conclusion (cost is constant in stimulus)Eliminate


B: Talks of reduction in
borrowing costs. Contradicts the conclusion (cost is constant in stimulus) Eliminate


C:Some cost cutting process does not imply the cost cutting manufacturing process that is being talked about in the stimulus. We can never infer some info from a given particular info. Eliminate

D: The author's logic says that X (new mfg process)should lead to Y (evaluation of financial benefit)
However this answer choice undermines the possibility of
X(new mfg process) leading to Y (evaluation of financial benefit).
How does it undermine? When we are changing SP, X method gets changed to some other method. And when we say that there is more than 1 method for reaching the conclusion ( Here it is Y) , then we are weakening the author's claim that only X can lead to Y.

Hence correct

E: Out of scope. Not related. Eliminate


Hope this helps!!
Cheers!!
Turbo Jet


:) :) :) :) [/spoiler]
Join the discussion

Re: manufacturing processes

by amazonviper » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:05 am
ranell wrote:Companies considering new cost-cutting manufacturing processes often compare the projected results of making the investment against the alternative of not making the investment with costs, selling prices, and share of market remaining constant.

Which of the following, assuming that each is a realistic possibility, constitutes the most serious disadvantage for companies of using the method above for evaluating the financial benefit of new manufacturing processes?

A. The costs of materials required by the new process might not be known with certainty.
B. In several years interest rates might go down, reducing the interest costs of borrowing money to pay for the investment.
C. Some cost-cutting processes might require such expensive investments that there would be no net gain for many years, until the investment was paid for by savings in the manufacturing process.
D. Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not.
E. The period of year chosen for averaging out the cost of the investment might be somewhat longer or shorter, thus affecting the result.
IMO D as well. I initially was about to choose C but as soon as I read D and the questions again (realistic possibility) I was confident that D was the answer.
I am pretty sure that C will be analyzed since this is a necessary assumption to be made.
Join the discussion

by Brad.C » Sun May 15, 2016 1:58 pm
D. Competitors that do invest in a new process might reduce their selling prices and thus take market share away from companies that do not.
Join the discussion