Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. The ShopperKing totals averaged \(5\%\) higher than the FoodBasket totals. Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since __________.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Researchers recently asked dozens of shoppers, chosen at random coming out of a FoodBasket supermarket, what they had purchased. |
|
| The prices of the very same items at the nearest ShopperKing supermarket were totaled and compared with the FoodBasket total. |
|
| The ShopperKing totals averaged five percent higher than the FoodBasket totals. |
|
| Nevertheless, this result does not necessarily show that shoppers at ShopperKing would save money overall by shopping at FoodBasket instead, since __________. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage starts with study evidence showing FoodBasket has lower prices, but then challenges whether this means people should switch stores. We have study data supporting one conclusion, but the author says this conclusion might not be valid.
Main Conclusion:
The 5% price difference study doesn't necessarily prove that ShopperKing customers would save money by switching to FoodBasket.
Logical Structure:
This is a 'challenge the evidence' structure. Even though we have clear data (5% price difference), the author argues this evidence doesn't support the obvious conclusion (people should switch stores). We need to find a reason why lower item prices might not equal overall savings.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes - We need to find a statement that explains why the 5% price difference doesn't necessarily mean ShopperKing customers would save money by switching to FoodBasket
Precision of Claims
The study shows a specific 5% average price difference for identical items purchased by FoodBasket customers, but the conclusion questions whether this translates to overall savings for ShopperKing customers
Strategy
Look for reasons why the study's findings might not apply to ShopperKing customers or why other factors could offset the 5% savings. The key insight is that we only studied what FoodBasket customers bought, not what ShopperKing customers typically buy or other shopping factors
This choice explains that shoppers typically choose their regular store because it offers low prices on the items they buy most often. This directly addresses why the study doesn't prove ShopperKing customers would save money by switching. The study only looked at what FoodBasket customers bought, but ShopperKing customers likely have different purchasing patterns - they probably buy items that are cheaper at ShopperKing. Even if FoodBasket had lower prices on the specific items in the study, ShopperKing customers might not save money overall because they'd lose the savings on their own frequently purchased items. This correctly completes the argument.
This choice provides additional data about the price difference for larger purchases, showing that the gap widens for shoppers with more than 20 items. However, this actually strengthens the case for switching to FoodBasket rather than explaining why the savings might not materialize. This doesn't help explain why ShopperKing customers wouldn't necessarily save money.
While this choice mentions that shoppers consider factors other than price, it doesn't explain why the study results don't show that people would save money. The argument specifically discusses whether people would save money overall, not whether they would actually switch stores. This addresses store choice motivation but not the money-saving claim we need to challenge.
This choice discusses the consistency of purchase quantities from month to month, but this information is irrelevant to why the price comparison study might not indicate overall savings. Whether people buy consistent amounts doesn't affect whether they'd save money by switching stores.
This choice addresses potential research bias by noting that FoodBasket employees didn't conduct the study. However, eliminating this bias actually makes the study more credible, not less. This doesn't explain why the results might not translate to actual savings for ShopperKing customers.