For several consecutive years, poultry prices at each of three statewide
grocery-store chains have exceeded the national average by about fifty
percent. Also, the per-pound difference in poultry prices among the three
stores never amounted to more than a few pennies, while among grocery
stores in other states, the prices varied by nearly a dollar over the same
period. The three chains must have conspired to not compete among
themselves and to fix their poultry prices at mutually agreed-upon levels.
The claim that the three grocery-store chains conspired to fix
poultry prices rests on which of the following assumptions for the
time period referred to above?
A. No other grocery store charged higher prices for poultry other
than the three chains.
B. Average poultry prices in the state where the three chains
operate exceeded the national average.
C. The price that grocery stores paid for poultry did not vary
significantly from state to state.
D. Consumers in the state where the three chains operate generally
prefer poultry over other meats, even if poultry is more
expensive than other meats.
E. Other grocery stores operating in the same state as the three
chains also sell poultry to consumers.
OA::-------------
ONCE AGAIN ASSUMPTION CR
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:42 am
- Thanked: 11 times
- Followed by:1 members
When it comes to "assumption" question, always remember to use this methods.(from gmat powerscore)
1.Supporter-basically you need to find a gap to fill between premise and conclusion. (this question doesn't seem to apply this method though because there is none to find a gap.)
2.Defender-(this method is a warrior like Hercules. Eliminate all the other possible factors that would weaken the argument. It seems this questions falls for this 2 method.)
A-It's too extreme and we can't assume this statement based on the premises. OUT.
B-It doesn't mention in the premises. OUT.
C-YES. our DEFENDER! by eliminating the possibilities, B statement protects the argument. BINGO!
D-Def. no in the statement. X-out.
E- Other groceries.... out of scope. OUT.
hope this helps.
1.Supporter-basically you need to find a gap to fill between premise and conclusion. (this question doesn't seem to apply this method though because there is none to find a gap.)
2.Defender-(this method is a warrior like Hercules. Eliminate all the other possible factors that would weaken the argument. It seems this questions falls for this 2 method.)
A-It's too extreme and we can't assume this statement based on the premises. OUT.
B-It doesn't mention in the premises. OUT.
C-YES. our DEFENDER! by eliminating the possibilities, B statement protects the argument. BINGO!
D-Def. no in the statement. X-out.
E- Other groceries.... out of scope. OUT.
hope this helps.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:690
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
the "defender" principle is a good one.
basically, FIND THE ASSUMPTION and WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION are exact opposites. i.e., if X is a weakener, then not-X is an assumption; if X is an assumption, then not-X is a weakener.
this argument claims that the stores were fixing prices. the only evidence given is the fact that prices varied much more in other states than in this particular state.
therefore, you could WEAKEN the argument by finding ANOTHER reason why prices would vary wildly in other states...
...and therefore any statement NEGATING such a reason would be an assumption.
if the prices in other states varied wildly because the price of poultry to the stores themselves varied wildly, then the argument would be compromised severely. therefore, choice (c), which NEGATES this line of reasoning, is an assumption.
basically, FIND THE ASSUMPTION and WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION are exact opposites. i.e., if X is a weakener, then not-X is an assumption; if X is an assumption, then not-X is a weakener.
this argument claims that the stores were fixing prices. the only evidence given is the fact that prices varied much more in other states than in this particular state.
therefore, you could WEAKEN the argument by finding ANOTHER reason why prices would vary wildly in other states...
...and therefore any statement NEGATING such a reason would be an assumption.
if the prices in other states varied wildly because the price of poultry to the stores themselves varied wildly, then the argument would be compromised severely. therefore, choice (c), which NEGATES this line of reasoning, is an assumption.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
OA C
hitrates r very high it seems...
Gud Guys..Cheers to u all!!
Thanks Ron for ur effort!!
hitrates r very high it seems...
Gud Guys..Cheers to u all!!
Thanks Ron for ur effort!!