Support Question

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

Support Question

by amysky_0205 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:30 pm
Manufacturers sometimes discount the price of a product to retailers for a promotion period when the product is advertised to consumers. Such promotions often result in a dramatic increase in amount of product sold by the manufacturers to retailers. Nevertheless, the manufacturers could often make more profit by not holding the promotions.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim above about the manufacturers' profit?

(A) The amount of discount generally offered by manufacturers to retailers is carefully calculated to represent the minimum needed to draw consumers' attention to the product.

(B) For many consumer products the period of advertising discounted prices to consumers is about a week, not sufficiently long for consumers to become used to the sale price.

(C) For products that are not newly introduced, the purpose of such promotions is to keep the products in the minds of consumers and to attract consumers who are currently using competing products.

(D) During such a promotion retailers tend to accumulate in their warehouses inventory bought at discount; they then sell much of it later at their regular price.

(E) If a manufacturer falls to offer such promotions but its competitor offers them, that competitor will tend to attract consumers away from the manufacturer's product.

OA: D

I would like to ask C. can someone explain?

thank u !!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
Thanked: 322 times
Followed by:143 members

by Kasia@EconomistGMAT » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:23 am
Let's analyze the argument:

Premise 1 - the product is sometimes made cheaper during a promotion period
Premise 2 - the result is often a dramatic increase in amount of product sold
Conclusion - (not supported directly by the premises) the manufacturers could make more money by simply not decreasing the price of the product for a promotion period

Answer C does not strengthen the claim that not holding the promotions could bring more profit. This choice does not offer any explanation why selling a lot of product at a lower price would be less profitable than selling the usual amount at the regular price. Answer C tells us why promotions are useful to advertise products that are not newly introduced. So this choice basically shows that promotions are an effective marketing tool.
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course

"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.

"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/

"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:14 am
Thanked: 1 times

by sri_r » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:47 am
Hi Kasia,

Could you explain how D is the correct option and not option B? It talks about the retailer's profit but the question is a reason supporting manufacturer's profit.

Kasia@EconomistGMAT wrote:Let's analyze the argument:

Premise 1 - the product is sometimes made cheaper during a promotion period
Premise 2 - the result is often a dramatic increase in amount of product sold
Conclusion - (not supported directly by the premises) the manufacturers could make more money by simply not decreasing the price of the product for a promotion period

Answer C does not strengthen the claim that not holding the promotions could bring more profit. This choice does not offer any explanation why selling a lot of product at a lower price would be less profitable than selling the usual amount at the regular price. Answer C tells us why promotions are useful to advertise products that are not newly introduced. So this choice basically shows that promotions are an effective marketing tool.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:27 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Sapana » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:18 pm
I dont get the answer. the retailers bought the items in stack only because they were advertised/below reg price . In the last sentence of the passage it says, if the manufacturer had not ADVERTISED, they would have more profit. But if they did not promote, would the retailers have bought the items in stacks. i doubt that, this is the reason I eliminated that answer. please somebody enlighten me!!