Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaEliminating One-Sided Explanations

Recently, the national retail chain BargainMart drastically reduced the variety of products it stocks, cutting its inventory from roughly 50,000 unique items to just 20,000. Surprisingly, despite offering far fewer choices to its customers, BargainMart's total revenue from sales increased by 15% over the exact same period, even though overall retail spending in the country remained flat.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  1. A
    Maintaining an inventory of 50,000 unique items required complex logistics and massive distribution centers that BargainMart could no longer afford to operate.
  2. B
    During the same period, BargainMart extended the daily operating hours of all its retail locations, giving shoppers more time to visit the stores.
  3. The items that BargainMart eliminated were primarily slow-moving products that had severely cluttered the aisles, and their removal made it much easier for customers to locate and purchase the chain's most popular, high-priced goods.Cevap
  4. D
    The 30,000 unique items that BargainMart removed from its inventory included many of the chain's best-selling and most heavily promoted products from the previous year.
  5. E
    Because of the inventory reduction, the percentage of items in BargainMart's inventory that are profitable is higher than it was last year, even though the absolute number of profitable items it carries has decreased.

Cevap

The correct answer explains that the removed items were cluttering the aisles, and their elimination helped customers locate and buy popular, high-priced goods.
The correct answer successfully bridges the gap between the two surprising facts. By stating that the eliminated items were cluttering the aisles and preventing shoppers from finding popular, high-priced goods, it provides a logical mechanism for how drastically reducing product variety directly caused an increase in sales revenue.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus.
Premise A states BargainMart cut its inventory from 50,000 to 20,000 items. Premise B states that total revenue increased by 15% despite offering fewer choices.
Resolving a paradox requires clearly understanding the two conflicting facts that need to be bridged.
2
Determine what a correct resolution must accomplish.
The correct answer must explain how drastically reducing product variety could actually lead to, or at least be consistent with, a significant increase in total sales revenue.
An answer that explains only one side of the discrepancy is a trap.
3
Evaluate the options against the one-sided explanation trap.
Options providing reasons for the inventory cut, like logistics costs, or alternative reasons for revenue growth, like extended hours, fail to link the two facts.
One-sided explanations leave the core tension unresolved.
4
Identify the option that reconciles both premises.
The option explaining that the removed items were cluttering the store and hiding high-priced goods successfully connects the inventory reduction directly to the revenue increase.
This establishes a causal bridge, showing how the first premise facilitated the second premise.

Anahtar Kavram

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Eliminating One-Sided Explanations

Bu konudan daha fazla soru