BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Weaken Question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:15 am
Location: India
Thanked: 13 times

Weaken Question

by gauravgundal » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:04 am
Primatech corporation has told its regular customers that a short-term materials shortage affecting one of its suppliers prevents the company from taking any orders at this time. Some of the customers have learned, however, that Primatech accepted a substantial order from the federal government. So the customers concluded that Primatech's real reason for not accepting their orders is to shift its focus to the more lucrative government market.
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the customer's conclusion?
A. Most of Primatech's regular customers also do business with the federal government.
B. Almost all of Primatech's employeed have received raises in pay during the last year.
C. A recent memorandum from the president of Primatech requested that all employees familiarize themselves with the published guidelines for companies doing business with the federal government.
D. Most of Primatech's regular customer order the company's products in bulk and receive discounts for doing so.
E. The order placed by the federal government with Primatech does not require delivery for more than a year, while order are typically placed for delivery within one month.


[spoiler]OA :E[/spoiler]

IMO: D
I assumed products in bulk mean large orders. --> Am I wrong in this assumption.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:24 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:3 members

by niketdoshi123 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:49 am
This is a cause=>effect argument
gauravgundal wrote:Primatech corporation has told its regular customers that a short-term materials shortage affecting one of its suppliers prevents the company from taking any orders at this time. Some of the customers have learned, however, that Primatech accepted a substantial order from the federal government. So the customers concluded that Primatech's real reason for not accepting their orders is to shift its focus to the more lucrative government market.
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the customer's conclusion?
A. Most of Primatech's regular customers also do business with the federal government. Most regular customers doing business with the federal government is irrelevant here
B. Almost all of Primatech's employeed have received raises in pay during the last year. raise in pay??? irrelevant
C. A recent memorandum from the president of Primatech requested that all employees familiarize themselves with the published guidelines for companies doing business with the federal government.Irrelevant
D. Most of Primatech's regular customer order the company's products in bulk and receive discounts for doing so. quantity of order is not the cause.. the delivery time is the problem. Also if they receive discounts, then the conclusion will strengthen.
E. The order placed by the federal government with Primatech does not require delivery for more than a year, while order are typically placed for delivery within one month. This weakens the conclusion by providing different cause
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:22 am
gauravgundal wrote:Primatech corporation has told its regular customers that a short-term materials shortage affecting one of its suppliers prevents the company from taking any orders at this time. Some of the customers have learned, however, that Primatech accepted a substantial order from the federal government. So the customers concluded that Primatech's real reason for not accepting their orders is to shift its focus to the more lucrative government market.
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the customer's conclusion?
A. Most of Primatech's regular customers also do business with the federal government.
B. Almost all of Primatech's employeed have received raises in pay during the last year.
C. A recent memorandum from the president of Primatech requested that all employees familiarize themselves with the published guidelines for companies doing business with the federal government.
D. Most of Primatech's regular customer order the company's products in bulk and receive discounts for doing so.
E. The order placed by the federal government with Primatech does not require delivery for more than a year, while order are typically placed for delivery within one month.

IMO: D
I assumed products in bulk mean large orders. --> Am I wrong in this assumption.
Conclusion: Primatech's real reason for not accepting their orders is to shift its focus to the MORE LUCRATIVE government market.

To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer must BREAK THE LINK between the GOVERNMENT MARKET and BEING LUCRATIVE. It must provide an ALTERNATE REASON that Primatech is focusing on the government market.

D: Most of Primatech's regular customer order the company's products in bulk and receive discounts for doing so.
If regular customers receive a DISCOUNT, then the conclusion that the government market is more lucrative is STRENGTHENED -- the opposite of what we want. Since the government's order is SUBSTANTIAL, the SIZE of the orders from regular customers does not provide an ALTERNATE REASON that Primatech is focusing on the government market.
Eliminate D.

E: The order placed by the federal government with Primatech does not require delivery for more than a year, while order are typically placed for delivery within one month.
This answer choice provide an ALTERNATE REASON that Primatech is focusing on the government market: since the government order does not require delivery for more than a year, it is not affected by the SHORT-TERM material shortage.

The correct answer is E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:45 pm
E: The order placed by the federal government with Primatech does not require delivery for more than a year, while order are typically placed for delivery within one month.
This answer choice provide an ALTERNATE REASON that Primatech is focusing on the government market: since the government order does not require delivery for more than a year, it is not affected by the SHORT-TERM material shortage.
Doesn't this strengthen the customer's conclusion that Primatech has shifted its focus to government sector? What am I missing?

I thought that since Primatech is not accepting orders from its regular customers due to shortage in material supply for short term and since government orders are to be delivered in short term as well, isn't it possible that during this short term period Primatech has shifted its focus on government order to fulfill it?

On the contrary, Why can't A be right? When many of the customers do business with the federal govt. couldn't it be true that the business is not very lucrative as posed by the argument?

Please help.
Regards,

Pranay
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pm
Thanked: 99 times
Followed by:21 members

by vk_vinayak » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:05 pm
bubbliiiiiiii wrote: Doesn't this strengthen the customer's conclusion that Primatech has shifted its focus to government sector? What am I missing?

I thought that since Primatech is not accepting orders from its regular customers due to shortage in material supply for short term and since government orders are to be delivered in short term as well, isn't it possible that during this short term period Primatech has shifted its focus on government order to fulfill it?
Your assumption (boldfaced) is not correct. Acc to E, government orders are to be delivered within a year (LONG TERM), while a typical order (from regular customers) takes one month (SHORT TERM) to get delivered. Primatech says that since there is a shortage of materials in short-term, it cant take orders that are to be delivered in short-term. It took government order because those are to be delivered within a year and Primatech hopes that by that time shortage of materials will have been solved. (NOTE: If Primatech had declined even the long-term deliverables from its regular customers, then we can say that Primatech might have shifted its focus on government market. But that is not the case)
On the contrary, Why can't A be right? When many of the customers do business with the federal govt. couldn't it be true that the business is not very lucrative as posed by the argument?
Please help.
Argument is about whether Primatech has shifted it's focus to government market (from it's regular customer). The fact that most of Primatech's regular customers also do business with the federal government doesn't affect the argument.

Hope it is clear.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1