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

Redeem

Vintage Clothes

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

Vintage Clothes

by komal » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:55 pm
Корkе: In the past ten years, most of the new clothes that I have purchased have fallen apart within a few short years. However, all of the clothes that I have purchased at vintage clothing shops are still in excellent condition, despite the fact that they were all over thirty years old at the time that I bought them. Clearly, clothes are not manufactured as well today as they were when those vintage clothes were made.

Which of the following is a weakness in the argument above?

(A) It fails to demonstrate that the clothes manufactured thirty years ago were of higher quality than clothes of all other eras.

(B) It neglects the possibility that the clothes of thirty years ago, when prices are adjusted for inflation, cost more than clothes manufactured today.

(C) It confuses the number of clothing items sold with the proportion of those items that are no longer useful.

(D) It does not explain why clothing manufacturing standards have fallen over time.

(E) It fails to take into account clothes made over thirty years ago that are no longer fit for sale.

OA E
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:05 pm
conclusion: clothes are not manufactured as well as they were when those vintage clothes were made.
Premise: clothes purchased at vintage clothing shops are in good condition when compared to the clothes purchased recently.

A) It fails to demonstrate that the clothes manufactured thirty years ago were of higher quality than clothes of all other eras. [all other eras are not discussed. Eliminated!]

(B) It neglects the possibility that the clothes of thirty years ago, when prices are adjusted for inflation, cost more than clothes manufactured today. [here we make the assumption that clothes that are costly are made of good quality. also this serves to strngthen the conclusion that vintage clothes are better in quality. Eliminated!]

(C) It confuses the number of clothing items sold with the proportion of those items that are no longer useful. [the stimulus does not confuse the items. it just fails to take the items no longer useful into account. Eliminated!]

(D) It does not explain why clothing manufacturing standards have fallen over time. [this again strengthens the conclusion. Eliminated!]

(E) It fails to take into account clothes made over thirty years ago that are no longer fit for sale. [correct. it directly weakens the conclusion by questioning the number of clothes that are not fit for sale]

Hope this helps!
Top
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:19 am
@komal: this question has been posted before. Please make sure that you check the forum before posting questions. We do not want repeats because of several reasons:
- it gets tiring to answer the same questions, so experts might just ignore it and you'll lose precious feedback
- we like to keep stuff fresh for our members, so that they're permanently engaged
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

by sumanr84 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:24 am
fibbonnaci wrote:conclusion: clothes are not manufactured as well as they were when those vintage clothes were made.
Premise: clothes purchased at vintage clothing shops are in good condition when compared to the clothes purchased recently.

A) It fails to demonstrate that the clothes manufactured thirty years ago were of higher quality than clothes of all other eras. [all other eras are not discussed. Eliminated!]

(B) It neglects the possibility that the clothes of thirty years ago, when prices are adjusted for inflation, cost more than clothes manufactured today. [here we make the assumption that clothes that are costly are made of good quality. also this serves to strngthen the conclusion that vintage clothes are better in quality. Eliminated!]

(C) It confuses the number of clothing items sold with the proportion of those items that are no longer useful. [the stimulus does not confuse the items. it just fails to take the items no longer useful into account. Eliminated!]

(D) It does not explain why clothing manufacturing standards have fallen over time. [this again strengthens the conclusion. Eliminated!]

(E) It fails to take into account clothes made over thirty years ago that are no longer fit for sale. [correct. it directly weakens the conclusion by questioning the number of clothes that are not fit for sale]

Hope this helps!
IMO : None of the options are correct here.

The argument is about durability and it has nothing to do with the selling. None of the options base their reasoning in that direction.

A is the only contender but it lost ground on account of all other eras

wats the source ?
I am on a break !!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:24 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by mgmt_gmat » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:13 am
IMO (A).. Experts.. can u please clarify... How the point of sale comes over the quality of the product...
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:43 pm
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:720

by analyst218 » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:56 am
well the person is making a generalization about the clothing of the whole vintage era from
the small sample of clothings that he bought. THe clothings he bought might have been the only
well-manufactured ones. Thus, the fact that he didn't take into account the other
clothings that he did not buy, and that those he did not buy might have been defective, weaken the conclusion.

It's E
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1