duyng9989 Wrote:tim Wrote:Is there any reason to believe that feasibility is NOT in play here? If you looked at this one from a feasibility standpoint, I think you'd get the same answer, right?
Please spend some times and read the two examples. Don't you see the analogy between two example?
In ManhattanGmat example: Assumption is the validation of the feasibility of the plan: foreclosure properties exist and you can buy it.
In the question being discussed here: If we do not have the feasibility that the permits are attainable, we cannot say about profit. Exactly the same logic line as Manhattan Gmat example.
WHY? In the question discussed here, choice A is incorrect.
I hope you follow me. Sorry, but I see your responses are very short and kind of perfunctory.
Thank you.
They really are quite different examples. In the example in our book about the real estate, I read through that and think WHOA! Every one of these premises may not be correct. Every premise reads like an assumption in itself. That is a good time to consider the feasibility of the premises.
In this case, the only premise is that there is a heavy tariff in Country X. That is a fact and there is no feasibility problem there. Instead of worrying about all of this, I should break down the argument this way:
Conclusion: Company Y can increase profits by opening a factory in X to manufacture the goods it currently produces in its home country for sale in X.
WHY?
Premise: Country X imposes heavy tariffs on imported manufactured goods.
Assumption: Okay, if I do this, I better make sure that I can actually SELL the products I make in my country in Country X and obtain revenue. That is more important than worrying about anything else at the moment.
Here's a tip . . . when the GMAT asks questions about profit, they are always using the equation Profit = Revenue - Cost. They frequently test to be sure that people understand that there is no profit without revenue, and that you must have revenue to have profitability.
