Q5 - Large discount chains

[mchelle]

Can someone please explain to me why (C) is incorrect? Specifically, how is small retailers' motivation irrelevant to the reasoning of this argument?

Also, I would like to better understand why (E) is correct. I see that the stimulus mistakes "exceptional service" as both a necessary and sufficient condition of retaining profitability, but why does this flaw suggest that exceptional service is the ONLY reason customers prefer small retail stores?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's do a quick recap of the core:

CONC:
Small retailers competing with large discount chains MUST offer exceptional service in order to retain their profitability.

(I emphasized "MUST" because extreme words in a conclusion are where we attack the conclusion ... in this case, we only need to show this author ONE other way besides exceptional service that small retailers could retain their profitability to disprove his conclusion)

PREM:
Price-matching vs. large chains will decrease profitability
+
Offer exceptional service --> retain customers at current prices

As you indicated, "exceptional service" is given to us in a premise as a SUFFICIENT condition for retaining our customers at our current prices.

Yet the conclusion treats "exceptional service" as a NECESSARY condition for retaining profitability (which is essentially the same as keeping our customers at our current prices).

So this correct answer choice could easily have read as a Necessary/Sufficient flaw:
"presumes that a condition that ensures a certain outcome is thereby required to meet that outcome"

Instead, all these answers are prefaced by "fails to take into account the possibility"

Whenever Flaw answer choices start with
fails to consider
ignores the possibility
neglects the possibility
etc.

we can just read the answer choice like we're doing a Weaken question: if true, would this weaken the argument?

(A) If some large chains don't make a profit, does that weaken? No, the author never claimed/implied/assumed that all large chains make a profit (plus, this is not very germane to the core)

(B) Does it weaken if we know that some large chains have lower profit margins than small retailers? No, in fact I was assuming that's PRECISELY what's going on. Large chains have lower profit margins but sell in higher volume.

(C) Does it weaken if we know that small retailers are motivated by things OTHER than profit? No, because the conclusion is purely about what must be done in order to maintain profit.

If I say, "You MUST take the LSAT if you want to apply to law school", does it weaken that claim to say "some people don't want to apply to law school". No. The only way to weaken the original claim would be to come up with a way that you could apply to law school WITHOUT taking the LSAT.

(D) does it weaken if we know that some small retailers DON'T compete with large chains? No, because the wording of the conclusion is restricted to talking about the small retailers that DO compete.

(E) Does it weaken if we know that customers prefer small retail stores for OTHER reasons besides exceptional service? Yes. Maybe small retail stores make it easier to find the merchandise a consumer is shopping for (vs. roaming the cavernous warehouse spaces of large chains). That advantage could be enough to maintain customers at current prices. This would show that small retailers don't HAVE to offer exceptional service in order to maintain their customer base.

Hope this helps.