The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720
source is : Paper tests

QUESTION:
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?
(A) Most of the larger customers for office equipment purchase under contract directly from manufacturers and thus do not participate in the retail market.
(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
(C) Some of the superstores that only recently opened have themselves gone out of business.
(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.
(E) The growing importance of computers in most offices has changed the kind of office equipment retailers must stock.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
Thanked: 331 times
Followed by:11 members

by cramya » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:43 pm
IMO the one that would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed is the one that supports it (i.e something that reveals that the analsyis is correct)


B does that -> The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.

Is this is true then the prices have gone down and the smaller retailers may not be able to match up their costs and hence their business may go on a decline. Thus the analysis that small firms have gone out of business, due advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low becomes true.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pm
Thanked: 237 times
Followed by:25 members
GMAT Score:730
The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

So the argument says that the casuality in BLUE is flawed so we need to find an option that states that it is correct

VOLUME INCREASES --- > PRICE FALLS ( Little guys can't match up..and boom!)




(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:04 am
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:620

by Rashmi1804 » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:54 am
The reason given by the critic is that "largestores have a small share in retial market"

But option B doesnt weaken this. Instead restates the reason already stated in the passage above -" the low prices offered by the largestores caused the shutdown of small businesses"

It like saying X is right....when critics says X is wrong, without any proper support.

HOW CAN THE LARGE BUSINESSES OFFER LOW PRICES INSPITE OF SMALL MARKET SHARE ??

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:45 am
rashmi,

Well, B does look best of the worst. What other option can you think of. I think B is the closest that comes to supporting the analysis.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:04 am
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:620

by Rashmi1804 » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:12 pm
@delhiboy

Hey! i understood why i wasnt finding B correct. Actually i was also worried about the VALIDITY of the statements, which i shouldnt even bother about when the question clearly states , " ....IF TRUE ...." in the question stem.

thanks,
Rashmi

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by anshulseth » Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:57 am
I am still not convinced with B.
Can you post the OA plz.

IMO it is A.
Asset

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:25 pm
tough problem.

remember that you must stay within the scope of the argument. you should develop a keen sense for what is, and what isn't, relevant to the issue(s) at hand.
in this problem, the argument is concerned solely with the retail market; non-retail business, such as the direct contracting mentioned in choice (a), is irrelevant to the discussion.

here's the basic skeleton of the argument:
* someone has attributed small firms' struggling in the equipment retail business to the entry of superstores into that retail market.
* this is flawed because the superstores control a low % of the market.

your goal here is to weaken the argument, which, as always, is done by undermining assumptions.
it's actually fairly straightforward to pick up on the key assumption in the argument here, because a connection is made, without any explicit justification, between (a) the superstores' low market share in the retail business and (b) their purported inability to affect the bottom line of the other firms in the business.
therefore, the argument (the original argument, which the narrator says is flawed) makes the following assumption: stores with a small market share can't possibly affect the other firms in the market.

therefore, we need to find an answer choice that gives a way in which stores can affect the other firms in the market even if those stores have a small market share.

choice (b) does this: the stores' heavy advertising is independent of their small market share, so this choice gives a way in which the superstores, despite a small market share, can have a significant impact on the rest of the market.

to reiterate, choice (a) is irrelevant, because the argument is concerned solely with the retail market, and so any consideration of the non-retail market is outside the scope of the argument.
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

Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:14 am
OA is B.

Thanks Ron you rock as always.

Regards,
maihuna
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Sun May 15, 2016 11:56 pm
I feel the answer will be B

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:20 am

by Eric77Gorm » Mon May 16, 2016 12:00 am
I'm pretty confident that B is correct answer