-
gmatnmein2010
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:06 am
- Thanked: 6 times
Corporate Strategist: It is generally true that a reduction in the price of a good results in an increase in the demand for this product, leading to higher sales. However, I believe that the management's strategy of stimulating the sales of our luxury cars by implementing a series of aggressive price reductions is seriously flawed. Dramatic price reductions on our luxury cars will erode the image of exclusivity and premium quality associated with these vehicles. If our cars become substantially cheaper, they will no longer represent the symbol of status and financial success, thus losing their main appeal to our customers.
Which of the following statements best describes the role of each portion in boldface in the argument above?
1)The first represents the main position of the corporate strategist; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that position.
2)The first is an assumption made by the corporate strategist about the efficacy of the management's strategy; the second is evidence that supports the strategist's reasoning.
3)The first is evidence supporting the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is that position.
4)The first is evidence supporting the position of the corporate strategist; the second is a generalization that will not hold in the case at issue.
5)The first is the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is evidence in support of that position.
Which of the following statements best describes the role of each portion in boldface in the argument above?
1)The first represents the main position of the corporate strategist; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that position.
2)The first is an assumption made by the corporate strategist about the efficacy of the management's strategy; the second is evidence that supports the strategist's reasoning.
3)The first is evidence supporting the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is that position.
4)The first is evidence supporting the position of the corporate strategist; the second is a generalization that will not hold in the case at issue.
5)The first is the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is evidence in support of that position.
