Loading...
For several years Buddy's Bolt Barn has specialized in supplying fasteners - nuts, bolts, screws - to workshops and manufacturing firms in the region. Buddy's in fact now supplies virtually all of the fasteners that this segment of the region's industry uses. Recently, however, many of the region's workshops and manufacturing firms have closed down. Therefore, unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment, it too is likely to go out of business.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| For several years Buddy's Bolt Barn has specialized in supplying fasteners - nuts, bolts, screws - to workshops and manufacturing firms in the region. |
|
| Buddy's in fact now supplies virtually all of the fasteners that this segment of the region's industry uses. |
|
| Recently, however, many of the region's workshops and manufacturing firms have closed down. |
|
| Therefore, unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment, it too is likely to go out of business. |
|
The argument starts by establishing Buddy's strong position as a dominant supplier, then introduces the threat of customer losses, and concludes that expansion is necessary for survival.
Unless Buddy's can expand into a new market segment, it's likely to go out of business.
The logic connects Buddy's dependence on one customer segment with the decline of that segment to predict business failure without diversification.
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that Buddy's will likely go out of business unless they expand into new market segments.
The argument makes specific claims about market dominance (virtually all fasteners), customer base changes (many firms closed), and business survival (likely to go out of business). We need to respect these precise quantities and relationships.
To strengthen this argument, we want information that makes it even more likely that Buddy's will fail without expansion. We can do this by showing that their current situation is even worse than described, that expansion is even more necessary, or that their dependence on the current market is even more complete. We should look for scenarios that eliminate alternative solutions or make their predicament more severe.
This actually weakens the argument because it suggests that Buddy's already has products that could easily work in other market segments, making expansion more feasible and reducing the likelihood that they'll go out of business.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that Buddy's current customer base might recover naturally over time, reducing the necessity for immediate expansion into new markets.
This weakens the argument because it implies that despite recent closures, Buddy's still has a larger customer base than when they started, suggesting they're not in as dire a situation as the conclusion suggests.
This strengthens the argument significantly. We know many firms have already closed, but this tells us that even the surviving firms are struggling financially and reducing their workforce. Companies that lay off workers typically reduce production and operations, meaning they'll need fewer fasteners from Buddy's. This makes Buddy's situation even worse than initially described and makes expansion even more critical.
This weakens the argument because it suggests that Buddy's has internal expertise that could help them successfully expand into new markets, making business failure less likely.