Q16 - Travaillier Corporation has recently

[chungyesol]

I was able to eliminate a and c, but I don't understand why b and d would not work. I think b, d and e all weaken... am I missing somethung here?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting -- this is a tricky one!

So, as always, let's make sure to really focus on what exactly we're trying to weaken. The argument tells us that Travaillier has recently hired people with experience in bus tourism and is negotiating with charter bus companies. But we also know that its traditional customer base travels mainly by air. From these facts, the argument concludes that Travaillier must be trying to expand its business by attracting new customers.

Not a crazy argument, right? It does look like Travaillier is trying to get into the bus tourism business, and if their customers are more into air travel, one explanation is that they are trying to attract customers who travel by bus. But that's not the only explanation, and since it's our job to weaken it, we should be on the lookout for answers that suggest alternate explanations for Travaillier's behavior.

(E) fits the bill because it suggests another reason for the bus stuff: the company could be trying to expand by introducing its customers to new services, as the consultants tend to suggest. So we've undermined the argument by offering another explanation for the facts.

(A) is incorrect because it would strengthen the argument, if anything, by eliminating the type of explanation offered in answer (E): if it's hard to change customers' preferences, then maybe they are indeed trying to attract new customers.

(B) is incorrect because whether "some" other companies have tried and failed really doesn't affect whether Travaillier is trying to expand into the bus industry. We would have to add the assumption that Travaillier wouldn't try something other companies have failed at--and that's a big assumption!

(C) was tempting to me, because maybe the new hires only coincidentally have bus experience, but it still doesn't explain why Travaillier is negotiating with chartered bus companies! It doesn't help us explain this behavior, so it really doesn't affect the conclusion of the argument.

(D) is totally out of scope ... it's about "some" of their competitors, not Travaillier, and it's about the customers who spend the most, and we have no idea how that relates to customers traveling by air vs. by bus.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[shirando21]

but the argument tells us:"But Travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air, and marketing surveys show that Travailler's traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences", does that not imply that it is not likely that the company can introduce their current customers into the new products and services sucessfully?

I don't feel very comfortable with E so far......

anyone can help?

[eric.kim]

It is true that the stimulus mentioned,
"marketing surveys show that Traveillier's traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences ."

However, it DOES NOT imply, as you wrote, that it is not likely that the company can introduce their current customers into the new products and services successfully.

Preferences CAN always change. Perhaps, Travaillier's marketing strategy hasn't satisfied their consumers to change their preferences SO FAR. However, if they can hire someone, a marketing genius, then they CAN change their current consumers' preferences by (E) "...introducing their current customers to new products and services".

[zainrizvi]

I feel like this is a bad q. Yes there are 2 behaviours that need to be explained(new employees and charter buses), but b clearly weakens the first part by suggesting that the bus experience part isn't completely relevant as they may have been hired because of the air travel experience.

[superb.one]

E works for me because it is the only one that gives a reason they are NOT trying to enlarge their consumer base by attracting new customers. They are offering EXISTING customers additional benefits/services. I also felt the part that they travel primarily by air weird, but I imagine maybe they are just using the buses for shuttling services to the airport or such from certain areas.

[ttunden]

I was down to C and E but picked C


How come C doesn't weaken but E does?

I hesitated with E. Just because the company has industry consultant that recommend that they do something, doesn't mean that they are going to follow through. I thought it was some irrelevant fact. There is no indication that the company is following through with the consultants recommendation.

I like C more because it weakens the reasoning the author is using. The author bases the conclusion on the survey and the fact that the company recently hired employees that have experience in the bus tour industry. So what if they have experience, can't they also have experience in the airline industry as well?


This is what C is getting at. It shows that perhaps the author erred in his conclusion. The employee(s) just happen to have experience in the bus tour by coincidence.

in the future if we are given something like E, do we just assume they are following through with it?

I've encountered a weaken question in the past where an answer choice was an IF + Then statement. That was the correct answer. So, then are we suppose to assume they follow through with whatever the answer choice says?

Thanks

[maryadkins]

I like your point about (C) a lot, but the "at least one" waters it down so much as to make it almost negligible. More importantly, it also doesn't explain why the executives are negotiating with bus charter companies.

(E) is better because it gives us a reason that makes sense without needing the conclusion to be true. To answer your question, I don't think you should take from this a "rule" about how you need to infer that someone will follow through on a recommendation. I think the takeaway here is that on weaken and strengthen questions you're on the lookout for the one that MOST weakens or strengthens. Don't let yourself fall for answer choices that would be good if they were written differently or more comprehensively. (C) doesn't get at the whole problem.

[kyuya]

(A) This is irrelevant. It is telling us that it's hard to change the vacation preferences of its customers.. but this has nothing to do with whether they travel with air / bus / walking. Furthermore, if they are attracting new customers with these services, they do not NEED to change anyone's vacation preferences.

(B) This is irrelevant. Other companies failed in going into the BUS business has nothing to do with Travaillier although it does look relevant at first glance. Even if this were true, it requires the additional assumptions that Trav. is aware of these, cares that they failed, and is not confident it could fix mistakes these companies made in attempting to expand into the bus business.

(C) Simply having past experience in air travel does not mean anything for whether or not they are attempting to expand their consumer base. If for example, one employee DID have experience in both fields, does this actually weaken the idea that the company wants to attract new customers? No! One employee of possibly hundreds or thousands means nothing, and the employee is not representative of the bus tour COMPANIES -- the people they are making these subcontracts with.

(D) Probably the most irrelevant AC of them all. Does nothing.

As for the right answer..

(E) If they are simply introducing their customers to new products and services (such as buses when they are used to planes), then this weakens the idea they are attempting to get NEW customers (as stated in the last line of the stimulus).