I guess nobody except you testluv could have got it right on the first attempt!!
I see ur perfect 800 score.....
I hope on test day by some divine way... I start getting these tough ones right...
National Chain stores
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
thank you for the explanation. your first post was helpful in addressing the type of question it was, but i was also still confusing A & E. this second explanation was very helpful. after demonstrating what the REAL paradox is, the answer choice was very clear and confident.Testluv wrote:Not quite! Pay close attention to the language of the choice.ssgmatter wrote:Thankyou TestLuv for the explanation....However I am still not convince with E... I mean it says the same thing as what A says that rest of the spending occurs thru mail order of national chain store...
please help me on this
Let's take a look at it again:
Does it matter whether most of the clothing sales that did not take place in stores (that is, outside of store clothing sales) took place through mail order divisions of national department stores or mail order divisions of regional departement stores or on the street, etc.?Most of the clothing sales that did not take place in stores were made thru the mail order divisions of national department stores.
No, the sources or types of outside-of-store sales don't matter. That outside-of-store sales mostly come from outside-of-store sources of a certain type (mail order division of national dept. stores) doesn't matter any more than if outside-of-store sales mostly come from merchants peddling shirts in the street. We need the choice to say that revenues from these outside-of-store sources increased, regardless of the types of outside-of-store sources....and this choice does NOT tell us that revenues at these alternative sources increased!
Let me know, if you still have doubts, and I will try to explain again.
- reply2spg
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
- Thanked: 27 times
- GMAT Score:570
In E don't you think that 'Most of the clothing sales made thru the mail order divisions of national department stores' is irrelevant? Why should I be worried about how the sales made? I have eliminated E because I think mode of sales is an irrelevant point here to discuss.
Answer is obviously A
Answer is obviously A
ssgmatter wrote:Spending on clothes in this country increased by 35% from 1970 to 1990. Over the same period, however, revenue from clothing sales actually made instores, whether retail or wholesale, only increased by 20% and most of that increase took place in national chain departmental stores.
Based on the above statements, which of the following is the most reasonable conclusion about the period from 1970 to 1990
1. There was an increase in spending on clothes that were purchased thru alternate channels, such as thru the mail or over the phone.
2. Spending on clothes decreased in those stores that were not national chain department stores
3. The spending increase was not caused by people buying more clothes, but by an increase in clothing prices, both in retail stores and in wholesale outlets.
4. Most of the increase in spending on clothing was the result of an increase in sales of high price items to a relatively small number of people.
5. Most of the clothing sales that did not take place in stores were made thru the mail order divisions of national department stores.
Please explain with reasons....
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)












