Critical Reasoning

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 If our cars become substantially cheaper, they will no longer represent the symbol of status and financial success, thus losing their main appeal to our customers.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?

A) The first represents the main position of the corporate strategist; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that position.

B) 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.

C) The first is evidence supporting the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is that position.

D) 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.

E) The first is the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is evidence in support of that position.

The first statement is a position not an assumption or evidence of the corporate strategist. This leaves us with just A & E.

A. The first represents the main position of the corporate strategist; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that position.
The second statement does not weigh against the position. The strategist maintains his position in the sencond & concluding statement as well.

IMO E.

IMO A

phelps wrote:IMO A

I am having trouble understanding the usage of the word "acknowledges" in A. "If our cars become substantially cheaper, they will no longer represent the symbol of status and financial success" is the consideration that I feel the strategist does not acknowledge.

I was not comfortable with E as well, because it states that the second statement provides evidence. But, I chose to eliminate A.

Can someone explain answer A please?

What is OA ? In the first bold sentence, the corporate strategist beleives the stated words. And the second bold sentence supports the stated words ( .i.e the strategist's belief)

Vemuri wrote:

phelps wrote:IMO A

I am having trouble understanding the usage of the word "acknowledges" in A. "If our cars become substantially cheaper, they will no longer represent the symbol of status and financial success" is the consideration that I feel the strategist does not acknowledge.

I was not comfortable with E as well, because it states that the second statement provides evidence. But, I chose to eliminate A.

Can someone explain answer A please?

the second bolded part supports the first bolded part. A says the second bolded part is against the first bolded part. so A is eliminated.

I guess it to be "B". The first bold one is a belief, and the second one supports that...

scoobydooby wrote:

Vemuri wrote:

phelps wrote:IMO A

I am having trouble understanding the usage of the word "acknowledges" in A. "If our cars become substantially cheaper, they will no longer represent the symbol of status and financial success" is the consideration that I feel the strategist does not acknowledge.

I was not comfortable with E as well, because it states that the second statement provides evidence. But, I chose to eliminate A.

Can someone explain answer A please?

the second bolded part supports the first bolded part. A says the second bolded part is against the first bolded part. so A is eliminated.

Thanks Scoobydooby. What about E? What do you think is the evidence?

1st bolded part: strategy of reducing prices of luxury cars to stiumulate sales is flawed

2nd bolded part: shows why it is flawed, supports the 1st bolded part. price reductions. price reductions affect the exclusivity appeal.

hey vemuri, you went for E too in the second post

I'll go with E on this.

First BF statement states the main position, of the Strategist. If the strategist had to express his opinion in one sentence he would use the first bold face sentence.

The second one supports this statement by giving reasons why the plan would fail.

Eliminate B, C, D because the first statement is neither an Evidence nor an assumption.

A says that the second statement .... weighs against the first one which is absolutely wrong.

E correctly states their relationship!!!

IMO E)

I agree as well

The answer should be E and not A

okay here is the OA
E

and here is the logic....
The corporate strategist begins the argument by describing the usual relationship between the reduction in price and the resulting effect on product demand. After describing the traditional relationship, he concludes, however, that the management’s price-reduction strategy is flawed. Thus, the first statement in boldface represents the conclusion of the corporate strategist. Finally, the strategist finishes his argument by providing evidence that justifies his reasoning. Therefore, the second statement in boldface provides evidence that supports the main position of the corporate strategist.

xcusemeplz2009 wrote: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?

A) The first represents the main position of the corporate strategist; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that position.

B) 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.

C) The first is evidence supporting the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is that position.

D) 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.

E) The first is the main position of the corporate strategist; the second is evidence in support of that position.

For role of a statement questions we want to start by identifying the author's conclusion, then ask how the statements relate to the conclusion.

Here, we have a classic GMAT argument pattern: "It is generally true that X, however I think Y." The author's main opinion follows the key phrase "however, I believe that". Accordingly, the first bolded statement is the author's conclusion.

Now let's look at the second bolded statement. The 2nd bolded statement is a drawback of price reductions for luxury cars. Since the strategist is anti-price reduction, this statement clearly supports the author's position.

Our prediction:

1st statement - conclusion
2nd statement - supporting evidence

choose (E).

I am leaning more towards E, but I'm not sure about it.