Critical Reasoning

There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet market, which is tied to the size of the population. Most who purchase carpet do so only once or twice, first in their twenties or thirties, and then perhaps again in their fifties or sixties. Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.


Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?
A. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
B. Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no remaining niche in the market for new brands to fill.
C. Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly merged companies.
D. Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles.


Official answer is [spoiler]: )[/spoiler]

IMO (C) - Directly attacks the conclusion that mergers are the way forward. What's the OA?

... little room for growth in the overall carpet market ... tied to the size of the population.
Most ... purchase ... only once or twice ... in their fifties or sixties.
??? Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.

Let us prove that 'more aggressive marketing' may not be disregarded by carpet producers
a) ... carpet producers market other floor coverings as well - not clear if we need to be more aggressive in marketing
b) ... carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no remaining niche in the market for new brands to fill - this leaves no room for marketing/strengthens conclusion
c) Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly merged companies - purchasing agents? is this an objective we are looking for? No, we are looking for marketing opportunities to create 'room for growth in the overall carpet market'; purchasing competitors and mergers are tools
d) Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are causing other producers to leave the market altogether - this is the real marketing going on.
e) The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns and styles - we are not strictly dealing with patterns and customers

Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.
a,b) most of others doesn't matter to us (X)
c) it seems ... right..but I cannot pretty sure. leave it...
d) It seems aggressive .. but I cannot sure that is that a marketing or not.
e) so what...? (X)

I think the answer is d.
But, does anyone can explain the differences between (purchasing competitors) and (aggressive marketing)?

Actually, I cannot figure out the meaning of the 'purchasing competitors' well. ;;;

kkckc wrote:...

Actually, I cannot figure out the meaning of the 'purchasing competitors' well. ;;;

I think 'purchasing competitors' means acquiring competing firms which is viewed as the source of our conclusion, compare with:
"Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing."

'purchasing competitors' is opposed here to 'aggressive marketing' in argument, and we don't need to know anything specific about neither the concept of marketing nor about the marketing techniques (aggressive marketing-your doubt for choice -d). Everything was given in the argument, i.e. CR entry.

I would say C ; C gives an example in which proposed murget didn't lead to more market gain.

D talks about a strategy --price reduction-- that is out of scope.

@bakhshaliyev : Could you please post the OA. The one you have posted has a type. thanks.

OA is D

@ bakhshaliyev: Do you have official explanation for the right answer. Thanks.

This question is from 300 GMAT CR questions. Official explanation shortly says:

Explanation: D gives an alternate way of increasing market share

@bakhshaliyev:

This question is from 300 GMAT CR questions.

If so, i am unhappy that I got tan official question wrong, and I have not yet fully absorbed it.
. May be, should PM an expert.

I am confident that it's D. The conclusion of the statement said there is no other way but to buy off competitors. If the competitors themselves go out because of bankruptcy, for instance, then the conclusion itself becomes flawed. Other answers do not directly hinder the conclusion in any ways.

Ok, I forgot to read the previous reply. What the book probably meant by alternative market is that the "competition level" of the carpet industry will change once competitors start folding. If the competitors do go out, there is no reason for the company to buy the existing competitors because the market itself becomes less competitive, making easier to gain market share.

Ok, I forgot to read the previous reply. What the book probably meant by alternative market is that the "competition level" of the carpet industry will change once competitors start folding. If the competitors do go out, there is no reason for the company to buy the existing competitors because the market itself becomes less competitive, making easier to gain market share.

WHOA! Hold one guys...This is not an Official GMAT question. I am not sure what 300 GMAT CR questions is but STOP USING THIS SOURCE. This is an LSAT question that has been stolen and the explanation in this dishonest source is pitiful!!

Explanation: D gives an alternate way of increasing market share

That is no explanation.

This is from the LSAT the February 1994 exam, section 2, question 9. This is not a GMAT problem.
And the OA is D

When I teach the LSAT course this is a question that is used to show various ways of weakening arguments. This question is used to show a way to weaken formal logic. As noted in many places formal logic is needed on the LSAT but not on the GMAT.

I am glad to see that many got the correct answer anyway, but for those who still have doubts here is the reasoning that the source did not provide.

The first several lines are basically irrelevant. The important part is the general principle stated at the end of the argument. The ONLY way to gain market share is through purchasing competitors. In formal logic we can say therefore "If you gained market share it must have happened through the purchase of a competitor." Now the way to weaken this is to show that it is possible to gain market share without purchasing competitors. (Several people above have noted this...)

Answer choice D gives us a way to increase market share another way - specifically by lowering costs and driving others out of the business.

Answer choice C is chosen by nearly 2/3 of people - even though it is the wrong answer! Extraordinary! But C does not strengthen because it simply shows that merger may not lead to increased market share. But we never said that it did! We said that a merger was the only way to increase market share. It is as if I said, the GMAT is the only way to get into business school and you showed me someone who took the GMAT and did not go to business school. That happens all the time. The way to weaken would be to say that you can take the GRE and go to business school.[/u]

Hope that helps!

@David@VeritasPrep: You chimed in when in need. thank you so much. The explanation makes GREAT sense and i understand why D is correct and C is wrong.It is an interesting flaw by the way.

However, C is an interesting case in some way. If I try to generalize this , is it conflicting from our way of dealing with cause and effect reasoning -- in which cause leads to effect so if a case exists when cause didn't lead to effect , it weakens. ?

Cause (purchasing competitors) -> Effect (gain market share); or because of the presence of "ONLY" in the conclusion, I can not generalize it as a type of cause-effect question tested in GMAT?