Explain the apparently surprising result - GPREP1

[RonPurewal]

D doesn't directly contradict any statements from the passage, but it makes the "surprising result" even more surprising. In fact, D not only fails to explain the "surprising result", but pretty much makes it impossible.

Basically, here's the essence of the passage:
Retailers are selling more of Denoma's stuff"”but Denoma's overall sales numbers are still down.

That's pretty much the deal. If you boil the passage down to that essence, it becomes pretty clear that, for both of these things to be true at the same time, Denoma must also sell other stuff to other places (besides retailers). So, D pretty much can't be true.

If this is what you mean by "contradiction", then, yes. If you mean "contradiction" literally"”as in "saying the opposite of a statement IN the passage""”then, no, that doesn't happen.

[gmatkiller_24]

I walk through this problem and come up with some personal thoughts, just please correct me if I were wrong.

here is the key to solve this problem:

The company had a sizable decline in sales revenue
The retail had a increase in sales revenue.

But these two facts are quoted " surprising"

therefore, it has assumed that the company depend all its business revenue from that of retail store, and revenue from the business and the retail store should rise or decline at the same time. (or the sales from retail store should be a accurate proxy of the sales within the business company)

Hence, we need a fact to break this assumption. That's exactly what choice C does.

[gmatkiller_24]

I walk through this problem and come up with some personal thoughts, just please correct me if I were wrong.

here is the key to solve this problem:

The company had a sizable decline in sales revenue
The retail had a increase in sales revenue.

But these two facts are quoted " surprising"

therefore, it has assumed that the company depend all its business revenue from that of retail store, and revenue from the business and the retail store should rise or decline at the same time. (or the sales from retail store should be a accurate proxy of the sales within the business company)

Hence, we need a fact to break this assumption. That's exactly what choice C does.

sorry for bumping this post. But is my thinking valid? Thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

essentially, yes.

as for the "bumping" thing--that won't help; in fact, it will just push your question back to the end of the queue.

in general, when any single poster makes lots and lots and lots of posts--especially when that poster is not a client of our company--we'll usually respond only to a limited number of those posts. this practice helps to make the forum more equitable for everyone.

[JianchengD868]

essentially, yes.

as for the "bumping" thing--that won't help; in fact, it will just push your question back to the end of the queue.

in general, when any single poster makes lots and lots and lots of posts--especially when that poster is not a client of our company--we'll usually respond only to a limited number of those posts. this practice helps to make the forum more equitable for everyone.

Dear Ron,

I think choice C has an assumption - Denoma's revenue that comes from components for other consumer-electronics has a big decline.
My question is whether can we infer this assumption from the given facts in the stimulus. The inference is as follows.

Because electronics retailers reported that they encountered a considerable low overall sales before they sold Denoma's new models, therefore if Denoma produced components for other consumer-electronics not sold its own models to retailers, its revenue from these components is as lower as was the case reported by electronics retailers.

When I saw "components fro other consumer-electronics" in the first time, I eliminated choice C because I cannot find any connection between these components and new models.

After I check the answer, I can only convince myself through the above lining of reason.
Could you please confirm me?

Kind regards,
Jiancheng

[RonPurewal]

Leslie: "So, wait, your husband made more money at Boeing this year, but his income for the year was lower?"

Nora: "Yeah."

Leslie: "How's that?"

Nora: "My husband does freelance work, too."

Leslie: "Oh okay, I see."

--

if you understand that conversation, then you understand this problem.

when the question asks you to "explain" something, the correct answer will simply provide a new avenue for explaining that thing.

[RonPurewal]

sure, you may have to fill in a few holes. (in the example above, leslie has to figure out that nora's husband made less at his freelance work.)
you shouldn't think of these as "assumptions"; if you do, you're fundamentally misunderstanding the task. you should just think of them as "ok, this is the connection here." remember that you DO NOT have to prove things in "strengthen"/"weaken"/"evaluate"/"explain" problems.

[RonPurewal]

and, just as importantly...

When I saw "components fro other consumer-electronics" in the first time, I eliminated choice C because I cannot find any connection between these components and new models.

^^ well, okay... but, then, which OTHER answer choice did you actually pick?

you can't just say "oh, i don't like this answer", unless you are also convinced that a different answer is actually CORRECT.

[RonPurewal]

remember--the wrong answers will all be TOTALLY wrong.
on an "explain" problem, ALL FOUR wrong answers will either...
...not help to explain the situation at all, or
...go the wrong way (= make the mysterious situation even more mysterious).

so, if you have only a minor complaint about an answer choice, it's probably the right answer!

basically, the answers are "white", "white", "white", "white", and "black" (where "black" is the correct answer).
if you see "white", "white", "white", "white", and "dark gray", then pick "dark gray".

[JianchengD868]

remember--the wrong answers will all be TOTALLY wrong.
on an "explain" problem, ALL FOUR wrong answers will either...
...not help to explain the situation at all, or
...go the wrong way (= make the mysterious situation even more mysterious).

so, if you have only a minor complaint about an answer choice, it's probably the right answer!

basically, the answers are "white", "white", "white", "white", and "black" (where "black" is the correct answer).
if you see "white", "white", "white", "white", and "dark gray", then pick "dark gray".

Dear Ron,

For weaken, strengthen and evaluate questions, we should accept the answer choice without doubt.

Your explanation is down to earth. I think you have put yourself into our position, so you can depict our reasoning realistically. You are so considerate. Thank you.

Kind regards,
Jiancheng

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron,

For weaken, strengthen and evaluate questions, we should accept the answer choice without doubt.

these questions ALWAYS say "Which of the following, if true, ...?" (or something equivalent)

those words are not a joke. if the words say "if true", then you consider ONLY the case in which the words are true.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, the same thing ^^ is true when "if" appears in the passage itself.

e.g., let's say that the conclusion of a passage is
If the cost of Method X can be cut by half, it will be likely to replace Method Y in many industries
and your job is to weaken the conclusion.

the point is that, if you get an answer choice that says
It is extremely unlikely that the cost of Method X can be cut by half
then this choice DOES NOT weaken the conclusion.
in fact, it's completely irrelevant, because "If the cost can be cut in half..." means THAT situation, no matter how unlikely, is the only one we're considering.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, in casual, everyday conversation, you already know absolutely everything i wrote in the last two posts (and you've known all of it since you were about 8 years old!).

e.g.,
someone says, "If I were rich, I would give millions of dollars to charity."
if you want to say that this person is wrong, then hopefully it's obvious that "You're not rich" makes no sense as a response!
instead, you'd respond with "no, you're selfish", or "no, you don't trust charities to be responsible with money", or something along those lines.

if you can harness the same instincts that you bring to everyday conversations, and apply them here, you'll nail these questions. the reasoning is not "exotic" at all, in any way, ever.

[RonPurewal]

Your explanation is down to earth.

if you read my posts on here enough, you'll see me talking about "explain[ing] to a 9-year-old". if you have that as your goal, you should do better on CR. (it's hard to "over-think" things if you're 9 years old.)

this is my natural state because, frankly, my brain just doesn't handle complexity or abstraction very well. basically, i'm like a really big, unusually articulate 9-year-old. (seriously.)

[RonPurewal]

I think you have put yourself into our position

yes.
because that's my job here. (:

although i'm also trying to get YOU into MY position (a notion that brings us back to the whole "explain to a 9-year-old" thing).