When trying to identify new technologies that promise to transform the marketplace, market researchers survey the managers of those companies...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

When trying to identify new technologies that promise to transform the marketplace, market researchers survey the managers of those companies that are developing new technologies. Such managers have an enormous stake in succeeding, so they invariably overstate the potential of their new technologies. Surprisingly, however, market researchers typically do not survey a new technology's potential buyers, even though it is the buyers—not the producers—who will ultimately determine a technology's commercial success.

Which of the following, if true, best accounts for the typical survey practices among market researchers?

If a new technology succeeds, the commercial benefits accrue largely to the producers, not to the buyers, of that technology.

People who promote the virtues of a new technology typically fail to consider that the old technology that is currently in use continues to be improved, often substantially.

Investors are unlikely to invest substantial amounts of capital in a company whose own managers are skeptical about the commercial prospects of a new technology they are developing.

The potential buyers for not-yet-available technologies can seldom be reliably identified.

The developers of a new technology are generally no better positioned than its potential buyers to gauge how rapidly the new technology can be efficiently mass-produced.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
When trying to identify new technologies that promise to transform the marketplace, market researchers survey the managers of those companies that are developing new technologies.	What it says: Market researchers talk to company managers when looking for breakthrough technologies What it does: Sets up the current practice that market researchers follow What it is: Description of standard industry practice
Such managers have an enormous stake in succeeding, so they invariably overstate the potential of their new technologies.	What it says: Managers always exaggerate their tech's potential because they need to succeed What it does: Points out a major flaw in the practice we just learned about What it is: Author's reasoning about manager bias Visualization: Manager's incentive = 100% personal stake → Claims about tech potential = 150% inflated
Surprisingly, however, market researchers typically do not survey a new technology's potential buyers, even though it is the buyers—not the producers—who will ultimately determine a technology's commercial success.	What it says: Market researchers don't ask buyers, even though buyers decide if tech succeeds What it does: Reveals the surprising gap in current research practices and explains why it's illogical What it is: Author's observation about contradictory behavior Visualization: Current practice: Researchers → Managers (biased) ✗ Buyers (unbiased, decisive) Logical practice: Researchers → Buyers (who actually determine success)

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by describing what market researchers currently do (survey managers), then explains why this approach is flawed (managers are biased), and finally points out what they surprisingly don't do (survey buyers) even though it would make more sense.

Main Conclusion:

There's no explicit conclusion stated - this passage presents a paradox about market researchers' survey practices that needs explanation.

Logical Structure:

This is actually a premise-building passage that sets up a puzzle rather than making an argument. It establishes: Current flawed practice + logical alternative = unexplained contradiction that the question stem asks us to resolve.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Paradox - We need to explain why market researchers follow a seemingly illogical practice (surveying biased managers instead of unbiased buyers who actually determine success)

Precision of Claims

The argument makes absolute claims - managers 'invariably' overstate potential, buyers 'will ultimately determine' success, and researchers 'typically do not' survey buyers

Strategy

For paradox questions, we need to find practical reasons that explain why researchers stick to this flawed approach despite knowing it's problematic. We should look for factors that make surveying managers easier/more feasible than surveying buyers, even if it's less accurate

Answer Choices Explained

If a new technology succeeds, the commercial benefits accrue largely to the producers, not to the buyers, of that technology.

This focuses on where commercial benefits go after a technology succeeds, but this doesn't explain why researchers would survey managers instead of buyers during the research phase. The distribution of future profits doesn't affect who can provide better information about market potential. This doesn't resolve the paradox of why researchers stick to a flawed information-gathering approach.

People who promote the virtues of a new technology typically fail to consider that the old technology that is currently in use continues to be improved, often substantially.

This talks about people promoting new technology failing to consider improvements to old technology. While this might be a general flaw in how people think about innovation, it doesn't explain the specific survey practices we're trying to understand. It doesn't address why researchers choose managers over buyers as information sources.

Investors are unlikely to invest substantial amounts of capital in a company whose own managers are skeptical about the commercial prospects of a new technology they are developing.

This explains why managers might overstate potential (to attract investors), but we already know from the passage that managers overstate potential. This choice doesn't explain why researchers continue surveying managers instead of switching to buyers, knowing about this bias. It actually reinforces the problem rather than explaining the paradox.

The potential buyers for not-yet-available technologies can seldom be reliably identified.

This directly explains the paradox! If potential buyers for not-yet-available technologies can seldom be reliably identified, then researchers literally cannot survey them effectively. This provides a practical reason why researchers stick with surveying managers despite the bias - they have no choice because they can't find the buyers. This makes the seemingly illogical practice completely logical given the constraints.

The developers of a new technology are generally no better positioned than its potential buyers to gauge how rapidly the new technology can be efficiently mass-produced.

This states that developers aren't better positioned than buyers to gauge mass production speed. However, this doesn't explain survey practices since it suggests both groups are equally uninformed about production issues. More importantly, the passage focuses on commercial success potential, not production speed, so this addresses a different concern entirely.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...