Critical Reasoning

There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet market, which is tied to the size of the population.
Most who purchase carpet do so only once or twice, first in their twenties or thirties, and then perhaps again in
their fifties or sixties. Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share
in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing. Which one
of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?
A. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
B. Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no remaining
niche in the market for new brands to fill.
C. Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly
merged companies.
D. Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are
causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns
and styles.

??????????






d?????

its a straight D

D makes some relevance.....
Whats the SOURCE ???

varun289 wrote:There is relatively little room for growth in the overall carpet market, which is tied to the size of the population.
Most who purchase carpet do so only once or twice, first in their twenties or thirties, and then perhaps again in
their fifties or sixties. Thus as the population ages, companies producing carpet will be able to gain market share
in the carpet market only through purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing. Which one
of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion above?
A. Most of the major carpet producers market other floor coverings as well.
B. Most established carpet producers market several different brand names and varieties, and there is no remaining
niche in the market for new brands to fill.
C. Two of the three mergers in the industry's last ten years led to a decline in profits and revenues for the newly
merged companies.
D. Price reductions, achieved by cost-cutting in production, by some of the dominant firms in the carpet market are
causing other producers to leave the market altogether.
E. The carpet market is unlike most markets in that consumers are becoming increasingly resistant to new patterns
and styles.

??????????
d?????

What is the conclusion here? That as the population ages, companies producing carpets will be able to gain market share in the carpet market only by purchasing competitors, and not through more aggressive marketing.

Let us examine the answer choices one by one:

A: Talks about other products. Irrelevant.
B: Talks about different brands. Again, irrelevant.
C: The conclusion is about whether mergers are the only way to gain market share. The consequence of the mergers (profit decline etc.) is irrelevant.
D: Correct. It shows that there are other means by which companies can increase their market share. As some players leave the market, the remaining ones get a larger share of the pie.
E: Consumer preferences. Irrelevant.

Having said that, this does not look like an official question. What is the source?

You ask "what is the source?"

I can help! It is an LSAT question and I have taught this question many times.

The conclusion is as follows: "The only way to gain market share is through purchasing competitors"
The evidence is just generally that the carpet market is pretty saturated and no real room for growth.

So in LSAT terms we have a sufficient condition (gain market share) and a necessary condition (purchase competitors). In other words if you tell me that you have gained market share in the carpet market I will know that you did so by purchasing a competitor. So if you have the sufficient it leads to the necessary. (This is formal logic)

One way to weaken such a conclusion is to show that you have the sufficient condition but that you do not have the necessary condition. For example if I say that getting into business school means that you must have taken the GMAT then the sufficient condition is business school and the necessary condition is the GMAT.

To weaken this you could show me that you got into business school without taking the GMAT. What you cannot do is show that you took the GMAT and did not go to business school. This is not only common in reality, but in logic you can always have the necessary without the sufficient.

So in this case it is perfectly acceptable to show that you had a merger but did not increase market share. So choice C does not weaken.

Choice D does weaken because here we have shown that the sufficient condition is present - the companies did achieve a gain in market share - but without the necessary condition - purchasing competitors.

thank you experts.
gmat dose not test formal logic and , so, pls re-explain the question , not using formal logic. Honestly, I do not know of sufficient and neccessary.

If you take out the formal logic language, the conclusion simply states that the only way to increase market share is by purchasing a competitor. We want to weaken this. So we show that we can increase market share without purchasing a competitor - this is what D does. Therefore we have shown that it is not true that this is the only way to increase market share.