PT148.S1.Q2 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that Wilson’s net income from sales of hair dryers must be half of what it was 5 years ago. This is because 5 years ago, the hair dryer from Wilson was 50% of all hair dryers sold nationwide. But today it’s only 25% of all hair dryers sold nationwide. In addition, the net income Wilson gets per hair dryer sold has stayed the same.

The author takes for granted that there hasn’t been an increase in overall hair dryer sales nationwide. In other words, the author overlooks that even though Wilson’s market share has gone down, it can still be selling more hair dryers than it did 5 years ago.

The author thinks the decline in market share (from 50% to 25%) implies a decline in overall sales of Wilson hairdryers. This is flawed, because the overall hairdryer market could have increased, such that 25% of the market involves more sales than 50% of the market 5 years ago.

Hair dryer profits are irrelevant, because the conclusion is just about net income from sales of hair dryers. Profits involve income minus expenses.

The argument doesn’t need to comment on sales of other products. The argument’s conclusion is concerned only with Wilson’s hair dryer.

The price of the hair dryer is irrelevant because we already know that the net income Wilson receives per hair dryer hasn’t changed. Maybe the price went up, maybe it went down — regardless, the net income is the same.

The argument doesn’t conclude or assume that the hair dryer is one of the company’s least profitable products.

PrepTest 148 - Section 1 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action