In an attempt to increase store traffic and profits, a department store conducted a survey of shoppers to determine what...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In an attempt to increase store traffic and profits, a department store conducted a survey of shoppers to determine what factors most influence their decisions on where to shop. Shoppers were asked to rank six factors: product selection, aisle width, customer service, pricing, fitting rooms, and return policy. Nearly 70 percent of the shoppers ranked fitting rooms as the number one issue. Therefore, the store doubled its number of fitting rooms by dividing each of its existing fitting rooms in half. Within a month of remodeling, store traffic and profits decreased significantly.
The information above most strongly supports which of the following explanations of why the store's response to the survey failed to increase store traffic and profits?
Passage Visualization
| Passage Statement | Visualization and Linkage |
|---|---|
| In an attempt to increase store traffic and profits, a department store conducted a survey of shoppers to determine what factors most influence their decisions on where to shop. | Establishes: Store's goal and approach
|
| Shoppers were asked to rank six factors: product selection, aisle width, customer service, pricing, fitting rooms, and return policy. | Establishes: Survey methodology
|
| Nearly 70 percent of the shoppers ranked fitting rooms as the number one issue. | Establishes: Clear survey results
|
| Therefore, the store doubled its number of fitting rooms by dividing each of its existing fitting rooms in half. | Establishes: Store's response strategy
|
| Within a month of remodeling, store traffic and profits decreased significantly. | Establishes: Actual outcome
|
| Overall Implication: The paradox revealed: Store correctly identified customer priority (fitting rooms) and increased quantity as requested, but the implementation method (halving room size) created an unexpected negative outcome. The solution addressed quantity while potentially compromising quality/functionality of the fitting rooms themselves. | |
Valid Inferences
Inference: The store's failure occurred because doubling the number of fitting rooms by dividing existing rooms in half likely made each individual fitting room inadequately small or uncomfortable for shoppers.
Supporting Logic: Since 70% of shoppers ranked fitting rooms as their top priority and the store responded by doubling the quantity through division, and since traffic and profits decreased significantly after this change, the method of creating more fitting rooms (halving the size of each) must have created fitting rooms that failed to meet shoppers' actual needs. The survey identified fitting rooms as important, but the implementation created smaller, less functional spaces.
Clarification Note: The passage doesn't specify that customers complained about room size, but the logical connection between halving room dimensions and decreased customer satisfaction provides the most direct explanation for why a seemingly customer-focused improvement backfired.
The survey was not specific enough. This choice is CORRECT because it directly explains the disconnect between the survey results and the failed implementation. When the survey asked shoppers to rank 'fitting rooms' as a factor, it didn't specify what aspects of fitting rooms were important - whether customers wanted more fitting rooms, larger fitting rooms, better privacy, or improved comfort. The store interpreted 'fitting rooms are important' to mean 'we need more fitting rooms' and doubled the quantity by halving the size. However, if the survey had been more specific about what makes fitting rooms desirable, the store might have learned that customers valued spacious, comfortable fitting rooms rather than just having more rooms available. This lack of specificity in the survey directly led to a misguided implementation strategy.
There are other factors important to shoppers, not involving the six factors mentioned, that the survey failed to include. This choice suggests the problem was missing factors entirely, but this doesn't explain why addressing the #1 ranked factor (fitting rooms) actually made things worse. Even if other factors were missing, properly addressing fitting rooms should have helped, not hurt. The passage shows that 70% ranked fitting rooms as most important, so addressing this factor should have been beneficial if done correctly.
The store did not create a sufficient number of new fitting rooms. This choice contradicts the passage, which clearly states the store doubled its number of fitting rooms. Going from, say, 10 to 20 fitting rooms represents a 100% increase, which is quite substantial. The problem wasn't insufficient quantity but rather the method of creating more rooms.
Survey respondents were untruthful or mistaken in their answers. This choice has no support in the passage. There's no evidence suggesting shoppers lied about or misunderstood the importance of fitting rooms. In fact, 70% consensus is remarkably strong and suggests genuine preference. The problem appears to be in the store's interpretation and implementation, not in the survey responses themselves.
Not enough people were surveyed. This choice also lacks support from the passage. We don't know the exact number surveyed, but achieving 70% consensus on any factor suggests the sample size was adequate to identify clear preferences. A small sample would likely show more varied, scattered responses rather than such a strong consensus on one factor.