My Answer: A

(A) In market surveys, few respondents who had been exposed to SuperComp’s advertising campaign said they
thought there was no point in owning a home computer.

Tells that most respondents were of the opinion that there should be a home computer. So the marketing plan has nothing to do with this. The people were already interested in buying a home computer.


(B) People who own a home computer often buy a second such computer, but only rarely do people buy a third
computer.

Not related

(C) SuperComp’s dealers also sell other brands of computers that are very similar to SuperComp’s but less
expensive and that afford the dealers a significantly higher markup.

Not related

(D) The dealers who were chosen to sell SuperComp’s computers were selected in part because their stores
are located in shopping centers that attract relatively wealthy shoppers.

This means that the marketing plan has infact contributed to the success.

(E) Computer-industry analysts believed before the SuperComp campaign began that most consumers who
already owned home computers were not yet ready to replace them.

Not related.

But the OA is C My pick was D. .

Ok. Can you just check if the wording of the QG option C is same as what you have posted? I have a feeling that something might be missing.

nop .... The wordings are correct... And the following is the OG expl ::::

The passage states that the stores through which SuperComp is selling its computers are experiencing
dramatically increased sales. Analyst doubt, however, that SuperComp's plan for selling its computers for home
use is really working. The question asks you to identify a fact that justifies the analysts' doubt.
Choice C is the best answer. If consumers who are drawn to a SuperComp dealer find less expensive
alternatives that the dealer has a strong incentive to sell to them, the analyst' doubt is justifies, since it is likely
that the increase in the dealer's sales is due not to sales of SuperComp's computers, but rather to sales of these
other brands.
Choice A is incorrect; it suggests that there is a market for home computers, so does nothing to justify the
analysts' doubts. Choice B is incorrect because it provides information about the consumers' buying inclinations,
but does not provide justification for the analysts' doubts, given that the dealers were actually selling more
computers than usual. Choice D is incorrect since it suggests that SuperComp chose well-located dealers, and
does nothing to justify the analysts' doubts. Finally, the beliefs mentioned in choice E, which were formed before
the campaign, cannot justify the analysts' doubts in the face of the evidence about increased sales.



And IMO I do not agree

sarthak wrote:To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use, SuperComp has enlisted computer dealers
in shopping centers to sell its product and launched a major advertising campaign that has already increased
public awareness of the SuperComp bran. Despite the fact that these dealers achieved dramatically increased
sales of computers last month, however, analysts doubt that the marketing plan is brining Super Comp the
desired success.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the analysts' doubt is well founded?

(A) In market surveys, few respondents who had been exposed to SuperComp's advertising campaign said they
thought there was no point in owning a home computer.

(B) People who own a home computer often buy a second such computer, but only rarely do people buy a third
computer.

(C) SuperComp's dealers also sell other brands of computers that are very similar to SuperComp's but less
expensive and that afford the dealers a significantly higher markup.

(D) The dealers who were chosen to sell SuperComp's computers were selected in part because their stores
are located in shopping centers that attract relatively wealthy shoppers.

(E) Computer-industry analysts believed before the SuperComp campaign began that most consumers who
already owned home computers were not yet ready to replace them.

Let me paraphrase the ques stem
To increase sales SuperComp enlisted computer dealers and launched a major advertising campaign that has already increased public awareness of its brand. And the sales of these dealers surged last month but analysts doubt that the marketing plan is brining Super Comp the desired success.

If we can prove that increased sales of these dealers was contributed by other brands rather than SuperComp brand, then analyst's claim is validated. And C does the same by proving that dealers get high margin of profit in other brands compared to that of Supercomp, so increased sales of other brands is the cause of surged in sales by these dealers.

although D is closer, C is better than D. These dealers were already located in those shopping malls and introducing one more product ie SuperComp brand may not necessarily guarantee dramaically increased in overall sales.