Situation: For five years the Souper restaurant chain has maintained rapid sales growth in Danport, primarly by opening new restaurants that draw patrons away from other restaurants in their vicinity.
Goal: Souper wishes to achieve continued rapid sales growth in Danport over the next two years.
Proposal for consideration: Continue to open new restaurants in Danport during the next two years at the same rate as in the last two years.

In light of the situation, which of the following, if true most strongly argues that adopting the proposal would be an ineffective way of achieving the goal?

a. At time at whish costumers find Souper Restaurants to crowded, they often to go to other restaurant nearby.
b. The Souper chain has generally opened new restaurants in locations that are in the vicinity of a large number of other restaurants.
c. Souper restaurants generally offer a much smaller variety of foods than many of the other restaurants in their vicinity.
d. Virtually all potential sites for the new Souper restaurants in Danport are located in the vicinity of existing Souper restaurants.
e. Souper restaurants have always offered meals that are somewhat less expensive than meals at restaurants that compete with Souper for patrons.

I tried to find what is the perfect answer of this question, I think the QA: B or C, can somebody help me with this?

Thanks

I guess the answer is D.

Is that what the OA is?

I think the answer should be D. If Souper opens restaurants at sites that currently have existing Souper restaurants, it would potentially draw patrons from existing Souper restaurants to the new Souper restaurants. Their overall patronage will not increase and hence sales will not increase because of the new openings. Sopuer should instead focus on choosing sites that are not currently served by Souper, but are served by other restaurants. In this case, their strategy will serve the goals of rapid sales growth by drawing patrons away from non-Souper restuarants.

this is pretty much accurate.

the one part of this that's not quite right: you wrote
it would potentially draw patrons from existing Souper restaurants to the new Souper restaurants
that's not the point; the point is that these are areas in which they've already drawn patrons away from NON-souper restaurants. therefore, they wouldn't have any additional "take" of new customers if they chose to build redundant franchises in these areas.

otherwise, nicely done.

Thank you Ron
I see that many persons advised us to prephrase assumptions and the answer before going to answer choices.

I wish you detail your though process when you do a CR problem so that we can learn from you. For example, you can write: first read the question, read the argument, paraphrase the argument, prephrase the answer, look for the close in the answer choices and mathe.

Ron, I wish you offer the detail thought process, as detail as you do with SC problems. YOur doing with SC problems help us very much.

Ron

Do you prephrase an assumption before going to answer choices? if you do so, please, detail the process.

Do you paraphrase the argumnet?, please detail the process.

what do you do when your prephrased answer dose not match with the answer choice.? please, detail the process.

we want to learn how do you do with a CR problem not only to learn your explanation.

I find that I can understand the explanation of a CR problem but I cannot realize the correct answer when I do the CR problem. So, I want to know your steps of doing a CR problem.

pls, help.

thanghnvn, i'm not a "rules" guy. when i see CR problems, i just look at them as though someone is telling me the stuff in the argument, or as though i'm reading it on the internet, or something similar. it's mostly an intuitive process.


if i'm reading an argument and i say "WHOA there's something clearly missing from this argument", then i'll look for that as an assumption.
i can't "detail the process"; it's intuitive. (it's like noticing that a letter is missing from a word -- you basically just notice it; i don't think you can explain exactly how.)



i read the argument as though someone is telling it to me, or as though someone is posting it on the internet.
if i see excessively formal language, my brain translates it into low-level conversational language.


i look at the answer choices and see whether any of them is necessary in the argument.
if that doesn't work, i try reversing them and seeing whether any of the reversals destroys the argument.

basically, the same kind of stuff that i write about on here. there's no secret sauce.



if you're looking for "rules", then, i'm sorry, but you aren't going to find them -- because they don't exist.
people have been trying for decades to reduce human reasoning to rules (the effort is called "strong artificial intelligence") ... and nobody has been able to do it yet.

you can't solve CR problems with memorized rules/processes. the biggest component is the normal type of reasoning that you use in your own life every single day.