technologies

jainrahul1985 wrote:When trying to identify new technologies that promise to transform the marketplace, market researchers survey the managers of those companies that are developing new technologies. Such managers have an enormous stake in succeeding, so they invariably overstate the potential of their new technologies. Surprisingly, however, market researchers typically do not survey a new technology’s potential buyers, even though it is the buyers-not the producers-who will ultimately determine a technology’s commercial success.
Which of the following, if true, best accounts for the typical survey practices among market researchers?

A. If a new technology succeeds, the commercial benefits accrue largely to the producers, not to the buyers, of that technology.
B. People who promote the virtues of a new technology typically fail to consider that the old technology that is currently in use continues to be improved, often substantially.
C. Investors are unlikely to invest substantial amounts of capital in a company whose own managers are skeptical about the commercial prospects of a new technology they are developing.
D. The potential buyers for not-yet-available technologies can seldom be reliably identified.
E. The developers of a new technology are generally no better positioned than its potential buyers to gauge how rapidly the new technology can be efficiently mass-produced.

OA to follow . Experts please help me understand what this question demands

[spoiler]So what's happening here? in simple words?

The end goal is to find the next facebook. The next iphone. The next technology that will transform the marketplace.

How do the researchers go about it? They talk to the tzukerbergs, the steve Jobbs' - the people who make the technology, people who quite naturally believe that their baby is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
However, the researchers, for some reason, do NOT speak to the people who BUY the product. Logically, THESE are the people you want to talk to - the technology can be great, but if people won't buy it, then it won't be a hit. So if we want to find the next iphone, we need to speak to the millions who will buy it later and see what they want, right?

The argument then asks WHY do the researchers do things this way. Why won't they talk to the consumers?

Before going to the answer choices, THINK: We assume that researchers are not stupid. If they could talk to the consumers, they WOULD talk to them (since the argument says that this is the right thing to do). So if they don't talk to the consumers, apparently they CAN'T talk to them for some reason: either they don't know who they are, or the consumers themselves don't know what they want, or SOMETHING.
That's the answer choice we're looking for - something that explains why researcher can't talk to the consumers.
With this in mind, D is the obvious answer. [/spoiler]

Responding to a PM. See my thought process above in the spoiler section. If you want to know how to solve CR questions, this is what you need to practice doing - take the problem set in generic, dry, incomprehensible terms, and make it your own. Tell a story about it, give your self an example of what the argument says, process the information and get down to the core of the argument.

Only when you understand what's going on can you take the necessary key step in solving the question - coming up with your own prediction of what the right answer should do. If you have THAT, the right answer choice becomes obvious. If you don't have that prediction, you will get lost.

Conclusion -- M.Researchers don't survey buyers.

Premise -- M.R survey managers as they have enormous stake

D. The potential buyers for not-yet-available technologies can seldom be reliably identified....clearly affects the conclusion as they can hardly be identified.

hence IMO D

Darn good question. what's the source?

I take this question as - "Assumption" type.

Two opposite points are given:
Survey are done on producer of technology instead of consumer, who actually determine the commercial success.

We need to fill up the gap - Why producer rather than consumer?

A. If a new technology succeeds, the commercial benefits accrue largely to the producers, not to the buyers, of that technology.
- Give one reason of why producer, not consumer - 'Contender'
B. People who promote the virtues of a new technology typically fail to consider that the old technology that is currently in use continues to be improved, often substantially.
- Irrelevant -
C. Investors are unlikely to invest substantial amounts of capital in a company whose own managers are skeptical about the commercial prospects of a new technology they are developing.
- Irrelevant -
D. The potential buyers for not-yet-available technologies can seldom be reliably identified.
- Given one reason of why produces, not consumer -
E. The developers of a new technology are generally no better positioned than its potential buyers to gauge how rapidly the new technology can be efficiently mass-produced.
- Its weaken the argument by making both consumer and producer equal

Out of A and D => D is very clear, as still talks about profit, which has nothing to do with people who are conducting the surveys.

boazkhan wrote:Darn good question. what's the source?

I don't know y but the queries about the source always go unanswered...