To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use, SuperComp has enlisted computer dealers in shopping centers to...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use, SuperComp has enlisted computer dealers in shopping centers to sell its product and launched a major advertising campaign that has already increased public awareness of the SuperComp brand. Despite the fact that these dealers achieved dramatically increased sales of computers last month, however, analysts doubt that the marketing plan is bringing Super Comp the desired success.
Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the analysts' doubt is well founded?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| To persuade consumers to buy its personal computers for home use, SuperComp has enlisted computer dealers in shopping centers to sell its product and launched a major advertising campaign that has already increased public awareness of the SuperComp brand. |
|
| Despite the fact that these dealers achieved dramatically increased sales of computers last month, however, analysts doubt that the marketing plan is bringing SuperComp the desired success. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by describing SuperComp's two-part marketing strategy (dealers + advertising) and notes that brand awareness increased. Then it presents a puzzling situation where computer sales went way up last month, but analysts still doubt the marketing plan is working.
Main Conclusion:
Analysts doubt that SuperComp's marketing plan is bringing the company the success it wants, even though computer sales increased dramatically.
Logical Structure:
This is actually an incomplete argument that sets up a contradiction. We have evidence that suggests the plan might be working (increased sales) but also have expert opinion that it's not working (analyst doubt). The passage doesn't resolve this tension - it just presents the puzzle for us to think about.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that would make the analysts' doubt about SuperComp's marketing plan seem justified and reasonable.
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve: (1) SuperComp's specific marketing activities (dealers + advertising), (2) dramatically increased computer sales last month, (3) analysts doubting the plan's success for SuperComp specifically. We need to be precise about what would justify doubt about SuperComp's success despite increased sales.
Strategy
This is a tricky strengthen question because we have a seeming contradiction - sales went up dramatically, but analysts doubt the plan is working for SuperComp. To strengthen the analysts' doubt, we need scenarios that explain why increased computer sales might not actually benefit SuperComp or indicate their plan's success. We should look for ways the sales increase could be misleading or not attributable to SuperComp's efforts.
This choice tells us that few people exposed to SuperComp's advertising thought home computers were pointless. If anything, this would weaken the analysts' doubt because it suggests the advertising campaign was effective in changing attitudes toward home computers. This doesn't help explain why analysts would doubt the plan's success despite increased sales.
The information about people buying second computers but rarely third computers doesn't connect to the specific situation described in the passage. We need something that explains why dramatically increased sales last month wouldn't indicate success for SuperComp specifically. This choice is too general and doesn't address the analysts' concerns.
This is the correct answer because it provides a compelling reason why analysts would doubt SuperComp's success despite increased computer sales. If the same dealers are selling competing computers that are both cheaper for customers and more profitable for dealers, then the 'dramatically increased sales' could primarily be competitors' products rather than SuperComp's. This perfectly explains the puzzle - sales went up at SuperComp's dealers, but SuperComp itself may not be benefiting.
Information about dealers being in wealthy shopping areas would actually strengthen the case that SuperComp's plan should be successful, not support the analysts' doubt. Wealthy shoppers would be more likely to afford computers, making this a positive factor for SuperComp's strategy.
This choice talks about consumers not being ready to replace existing computers, but the passage doesn't specify that SuperComp is targeting replacement purchases versus new purchases. Additionally, this information existed before the campaign began, so it doesn't explain why analysts would doubt the plan now after seeing increased sales.