Rumored declines in automobile-industry revenues
are exaggerated. It is true that automobile
manufacturers' share of the industry's revenues fell
from 65 percent two years ago to 50 percent today,
but over the same period suppliers of automobile
parts had their share increase from 15 percent to 20
percent and service companies (for example,
distributors, dealers, and repairers) had their share
increase from 20 percent to 30 percent.
Which one of the following best indicates why the
statistics given above provide by themselves no
evidence for the conclusion they are intended to
support?
(A) The possibility is left open that the statistics
for manufacturers' share of revenues come
from a different source than the other
statistics.
(B) No matter what changes the automobile
industry's overall revenues undergo, the
total of all shares of these revenues must be
100 percent.
(C) No explanation is given for why the revenue
shares of different sectors of the industry
changed.
(D) Manufacturers and parts companies depend for
their revenue on dealers' success in selling
cars.
(E) Revenues are an important factor but are not
the only factor in determining profits.
Q1) what type of Question is this? What is the author asking us to do.
Please help with this one.
LSAT Q . Market Share
This topic has expert replies
- Kasia@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
- Thanked: 322 times
- Followed by:143 members
This is a Conclusion Weakening question. You need to find an answer choice which, if true, weakens the argument (shows that the presented data does not support the conclusion).
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
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
- hoji
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:35 am
- Location: TASHKENT
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:640
IMO D,sachindia wrote:Thanks Kasia, So what would be the answer here?
the reason:
the premise says that industry's share declined, but industry's other two sectors' share increased
from this the argument states that decline in industry's revenue is not that bad.
Now imagine that whole industry is 100% and it has 10 sectors. The two sectors' increase in share does not necessarily mean that whole industry's share increased: it may be that other sectors may account for the balance(example: other 8s' share decreased by the amount)
so what matters most is the whole industry's change, not its individual sectors(except all sectors in the industry taken together)
I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of a man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.
Henry David Thoreau.
Sleep GMAT, eat GMAT, beat GMAT!
______________________________
Quant ----> 51
Verbal----> 44+
GMAT ----> 750+
Henry David Thoreau.
Sleep GMAT, eat GMAT, beat GMAT!
______________________________
Quant ----> 51
Verbal----> 44+
GMAT ----> 750+