Q20 - The layouts of supermarkets

[dan]

20. (E)
Question type: Application
The argument explains why supermarkets are designed a specific way: it details the benefits the design has for the store owners, and the frustrations it causes in the customers. Answer choice (E) contains a principle that is well illustrated with this example: the owners manipulate the customers with the store design, and this causes unwelcome frustration for customers.

Notice that the author does not go as far as to say that this frustration causes customers to stop shopping, or is, in any way, bad for business.
(A) goes too far beyond the text.
(B) goes too far beyond the text.
(C) goes too far beyond the text.
(D) goes too far beyond the text.

[gyfirefire]

could anyone help me understand why (c) is not correct although i thought (E) is more specific, closer to the original argument.

Thanks alot ahead.

[dan]

Sure. The key word in (C) is "fail." Nowhere in the argument does the author indicate that the plan fails. It only says that such schemes can alienate customers. We might connect the dots ourselves and assume that alienating customers means a failed plan, but that would be going to far. After all, it's very possible that the plan works -- customers walk all the way to the back to pick up a loaf of bread, pass by a tempting candy display, and then end up buying a bunch of candy. Maybe this customer is frustrated by the long walk to the bread section, and maybe this customer has been alienated, but the plan has still worked!

[gyfirefire]

Thanks a lot! "Fail" is too strong a word to relate to anything in the stimulus.

[mrudula_2005]

20. (E)
Question type: Application
The argument explains why supermarkets are designed a specific way: it details the benefits the design has for the store owners, and the frustrations it causes in the customers. Answer choice (E) contains a principle that is well illustrated with this example: the owners manipulate the customers with the store design, and this causes unwelcome frustration for customers.

Notice that the author does not go as far as to say that this frustration causes customers to stop shopping, or is, in any way, bad for business.
(A) goes too far beyond the text.
(B) goes too far beyond the text.
(C) goes too far beyond the text.
(D) goes too far beyond the text.

(in response to bolded part)
exactly, so how can the principle specify that manipulation of people can have "unwelcome" consequences..? we don't know what the consequences were...just people's reaction. also, isn't the phrase "manipulation of people" a distortion and extreme?

[wangyitu3712]

Why B goes too far beyond the text?

[cyruswhittaker]

I initially chose B as well. However, looking over the question again, it's not relevant. We can assume that alienating the customers is bad for business, but it might not be. And notice how the question stem says "most precisely illustrates."

Thus, E, which doesn't require further assumptions, is more precise than choice B.

[bbirdwell]

exactly, so how can the principle specify that manipulation of people can have "unwelcome" consequences..? we don't know what the consequences were...just people's reaction

It's reasonable to infer that customer "frustration," which was a consequence, is "unwelcome."

(B) goes too far because we don't know what effect the frustration actually had on business. The text never says that they stopped shopping there because of their frustration.

also, isn't the phrase "manipulation of people" a distortion and extreme?

Not really. I mean, it sticks out at first glance, but "designed to make customers walk all the way to the back..." That's pretty much the dictionary definition of manipulation: "to control or influence," such as designing in order to make someone do something.

[shirando21]

I have difficulty identifying the question type. Is this a type of principle questions or inference question?

[sejin.park.214]

I have difficulty identifying the question type. Is this a type of principle questions or inference question?

This seems like a "Must Principle" question meaning that taking the information from the passage we can come with a principle.

[ericha3535]

Also, wouldn't you say C is wrong because of equivocation between "manipulation" and "well-thought-out plan?"

Just because the way that the items are arranged and situated in a certain way to induce people into buying things, which is a form of manipulation, I wouldn't call this a well thought out plan, just a form of marketing.

Also, I eliminated B and D just by the words "good business practice;" nowhere does argument present anything that could support such concept.

Any thoughts?

[sumukh09]

I picked B for this because the stim says the inconvenience caused by the alienation of customers is the top reason for disliking supermarkets. If customers dislike supermarkets then how can that be good for business? I agree that to dislike something does not necessarily mean you stop doing whatever it is that you dislike; it may be out of necessity that you have to continue doing that thing. But it can't be "good" for business if people are inconvenienced by the design of supermarkets. If they weren't inconvenienced, then perhaps more shoppers would shop at supermarkets and thus business would improve. I'm thinking as I'm writing and I guess there could be benefits of supermarkets that greatly outweigh the inconvenience aspect of the layout; but I still think B is a better answer than E because I don't see the connection between "unwelcome consequences" and people's opinion about disliking supermarkets because of inconvenience. If these unwelcome consequences had to do with business specifically then it would be a better answer imo.

[marcus.v.p.]

So, are we assuming, "Unwelcome consequences" is the same as inconvenience as the shoppers' top reason for disliking supermarkets? As well, are we assuming "manipulation of people" is the same as the layouts of the supermarket as described in this question?

Marcus

[maryadkins]

So, are we assuming, "Unwelcome consequences" is the same as inconvenience as the shoppers' top reason for disliking supermarkets? As well, are we assuming "manipulation of people" is the same as the layouts of the supermarket as described in this question?

Yep! It's safe to say that making your customers dislike you is not a consequence of your behavior that you welcome. So it's unwelcome. And putting certain items in the back of the store in order to make people pass things that will tempt them fits the word "manipulate."