CR - Fashion Press

[db12]

Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?

A) A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

B) Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than $1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

D) A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

E) The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.

The fashion executive's reasoning is that there is a positive correlation between revenue and major articles in the press. The OA is E but it is unclear to me why that would not result in more articles. The journalists could write articles on the decline of the company's prestige or change in strategy. Answer D provides an example of a company that had lower revenues and received more press which contradicts the executive's thinking of a positive correlation between revenues and press. What am I missing?

[schmid215]

I think D is weak, because it is very plausible that the fashion press and the auto press could have different tendencies. If D made the same claim about a fashion company, then it would be much stronger. You do raise a legitimate concern about choice E, however. As you pointed out, just because the brand is not highly regarded among fashion journalists does not mean that they would not be inclined to write about it more; in fact, it makes sense that this would be a reason to write about it more. I think MGMAT would say that the question was meant to imply that "cachet among fashion journalists" means their approval of the brand as a subject of journalistic inquiry, and not just of its quality simply, but we have no good grounds for deducing this. With all that said, I think I still would have picked E, because it stands out as the most plausible answer. The question could have been better constructed, however, which is rare for an excellent company like MGMAT.

[boaz.khan]

(D) is incorrect because it talks about auto industry press whereas the stem talks about the fashion industry press. What has auto industry press got to do with fashion press?


Hope this helps.

[jnelson0612]

Very good comments regarding D; thank you!

[nikhil.baveja]

the basic assumption here is- the number of times the company will be featured in the press is proportional to the company’s revenue.

the statement E here gives a reason of high sales volume this Yr, but it never tells anything about higher/lower sales volume in next yr..
how does this undermines next yr revenue? and without doing that how does it undermines this basic assumption.
I totally agree that in option D what has auto industry got to do with fashion industry. but we have to select the best option possible..and I dont see how E presents a flaw in the assumption that revenue and number of articles are proportional.
Can some one please help, what am I missing here?

[tim]

It sounds like your biggest concern is how to justify E as an answer, so I'll address that. You are correct that the executive appears to be assuming that higher revenue will result in more coverage in the fashion press, so in order to undermine that reasoning we need an answer choice that will help us understand why sales may have increased with out a corresponding increase in coverage. E totally does this of course, because it shows the introduction of new product lines that could have increased revenue but may not have been of any interest to the fashion press. We don't need to speculate on whether a less fashionable product line might actually generate more negative coverage in the fashion press; all we have to do is provide some explanation that could result in less coverage, and that's totally what we have here..

[nikhil.baveja]

E totally does this of course, because it shows the introduction of new product lines that could have increased revenue but may not have been of any interest to the fashion press.

I still dont get it, interest from fashion press has nothing to do with this statement.

amount of revenue = amount of articles
it is not interest by fashion press = amount of articles
and its also not amount of revenue = interest in fashion press.

sorry to trouble you, but I still dont get it.

Nikhil

[RonPurewal]

amount of revenue = amount of articles
it is not interest by fashion press = amount of articles
and its also not amount of revenue = interest in fashion press.

remember that essentially all strengthening/weakening problems will require a certain amount of real-world intuition, or, if you will, "common sense". (in fact, this is the reason why there are so many of these problems in the first place!) if you are expecting everything to be spelled out explicitly, you are going to be in big trouble on this exam.

as for your statement that i've highlighted in color here -- your everyday intuition should tell you that, if journalists' interest in writing about a topic drops dramatically, then fewer articles will be written about that topic. because articles are written by journalists, who presumably have at least some interest in the topic they are writing about.

[ellaavame]

that amazing news, you just try your level best... keep up the good work like that....

[tim]

:)