Under United States law, a distinctive package design can be legally protected against copying. Lorex shampoo, a leading brand, is...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Under United States law, a distinctive package design can be legally protected against copying. Lorex shampoo, a leading brand, is packaged in a triangular-shaped bottle with a gold label. A major pharmacy chain has introduced a similar, less expensive shampoo in similarly shaped bottles with plain black-and-white labels carrying the chain's name. Though the triangular shape is distinctive, the manufacturer of Lorex has not legally challenged its use for the chain's shampoo.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for the manufacturer of Lorex not to challenge the chain's use of the triangular package design?

The manufacturer of Lorex depends on sales on the willingness of the chain to stock Lorex and other of the manufacturer's products.

The black-and-white labeling of the chain's shampoo indicates to the consumer that irrelevant expense has been spared in order to bring the product to the consumer at a lower cost.

The cost of manufacturing the chain's shampoo is substantially lower than the cost of manufacturing Lorex.

Lawsuits brought for the purpose of protecting distinctive package designs are generally successful.

The manufacturer of Lorex also manufactures other shampoos, and those shampoos are not sold in triangular-shaped.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Under United States law, a distinctive package design can be legally protected against copying.	What it says: US law lets companies protect unique packaging designs from being copied What it does: Sets up the legal foundation for the discussion What it is: Legal background/context
Lorex shampoo, a leading brand, is packaged in a triangular-shaped bottle with a gold label.	What it says: Lorex is a popular shampoo that comes in triangular bottles with gold labels What it does: Introduces the main brand and describes its distinctive packaging What it is: Product description Visualization: Lorex bottle = Triangle shape + Gold label
A major pharmacy chain has introduced a similar, less expensive shampoo in similarly shaped bottles with plain black-and-white labels carrying the chain's name.	What it says: A big pharmacy chain now sells cheaper shampoo in triangular bottles but with plain black-and-white labels What it does: Introduces the competing product that copies Lorex's distinctive triangular shape What it is: Competitor description Visualization: Chain's bottle = Same triangle shape + Plain black-and-white label + Lower price
Though the triangular shape is distinctive, the manufacturer of Lorex has not legally challenged its use for the chain's shampoo.	What it says: Even though the triangular shape is unique, Lorex hasn't sued the pharmacy chain What it does: Presents the puzzle - why isn't Lorex using legal protection that should be available? What it is: The central mystery/phenomenon to explain

Argument Flow:

"The passage sets up a legal framework, introduces two competing products with similar packaging, and then presents a puzzling situation where legal action isn't being taken despite apparent grounds for it."

Main Conclusion:

"This passage doesn't actually contain a conclusion - it's setting up a scenario that needs explanation. The question asks us to find the strongest reason why Lorex wouldn't challenge the copying."

Logical Structure:

"This is a 'explain the phenomenon' structure. We have premises that establish: (1) legal protection exists, (2) Lorex has distinctive packaging, (3) a competitor is copying it, and (4) Lorex isn't taking legal action. The question asks us to explain why step 4 makes sense given steps 1-3."

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would make it more reasonable/logical for Lorex NOT to challenge the pharmacy chain's use of the triangular design, even though they legally could.

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about Lorex's decision NOT to take legal action despite having distinctive packaging that could be legally protected. We need to focus on why this non-action makes strategic sense.

Strategy

Since this is a strengthen question about why Lorex chose NOT to sue, we need to think of scenarios that would make not suing the smart business move. We should consider:

Legal factors that make winning unlikely despite the law
Business factors where suing would backfire
Strategic reasons where not suing actually benefits Lorex more than suing would

Answer Choices Explained

The manufacturer of Lorex depends on sales on the willingness of the chain to stock Lorex and other of the manufacturer's products.

This provides an excellent business reason for not suing. If Lorex depends on this pharmacy chain to stock and sell their products, then suing the chain could backfire spectacularly. The chain might respond by pulling all Lorex products from their shelves, which could hurt Lorex's sales far more than the copying of their bottle design. This creates a clear strategic reason to avoid legal action - the business relationship is more valuable than protecting the packaging design.

The black-and-white labeling of the chain's shampoo indicates to the consumer that irrelevant expense has been spared in order to bring the product to the consumer at a lower cost.

This talks about what the black-and-white labeling communicates to consumers about cost savings. However, this doesn't explain why Lorex wouldn't want to sue. If anything, this might make the competing product more appealing to price-conscious consumers, which would give Lorex more reason to challenge it, not less. This doesn't strengthen the explanation for Lorex's inaction.

The cost of manufacturing the chain's shampoo is substantially lower than the cost of manufacturing Lorex.

The fact that the chain's manufacturing costs are lower doesn't provide any reason why Lorex wouldn't challenge the packaging design. Lower manufacturing costs for a competitor actually makes that competitor more threatening, which would typically motivate legal action, not discourage it. This doesn't explain Lorex's decision at all.

Lawsuits brought for the purpose of protecting distinctive package designs are generally successful.

If lawsuits for protecting distinctive designs are generally successful, this would actually give Lorex more reason to sue, not less. This makes their decision NOT to sue even more puzzling rather than explaining it. This weakens rather than strengthens the explanation for their inaction.

The manufacturer of Lorex also manufactures other shampoos, and those shampoos are not sold in triangular-shaped.

The fact that Lorex's other shampoos don't use triangular bottles is irrelevant to whether they should protect this particular design. This doesn't provide any strategic, legal, or business reason for not challenging the copying of their distinctive triangular bottle design.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...