CAT 2019 Slot 1VARC Question 5

Mixed PracticeEasy
Passage / Data

Answer the following questions based on the information given below.

Contemporary internet shopping conjures a perfect storm of choice anxiety. Research has consistently held that people who are presented with a few options make better, easier decisions than those presented with many. . . . Helping consumers figure out what to buy amid an endless sea of choice online has become a cottage industry unto itself. Many brands and retailers now wield marketing buzzwords such as curation, differentiation, and discovery as they attempt to sell an assortment of stuff targeted to their ideal customer. Companies find such shoppers through the data gold mine of digital advertising, which can catalog people by gender, income level, personal interests, and more. Since Americans have lost the ability to sort through the sheer volume of the consumer choices available to them, a ghost now has to be in the retail machine, whether it’s an algorithm, an influencer, or some snazzy ad tech to help a product follow you around the internet. Indeed, choice fatigue is one reason so many people gravitate toward lifestyle influencers on Instagram—the relentlessly chic young moms and perpetually vacationing 20-somethings—who present an aspirational worldview, and then recommend the products and services that help achieve it. . . .

For a relatively new class of consumer-products start-ups, there’s another method entirely. Instead of making sense of a sea of existing stuff, these companies claim to disrupt stuff as Americans know it. Casper (mattresses), Glossier (makeup), Away (suitcases), and many others have sprouted up to offer consumers freedom from choice: The companies have a few aesthetically pleasing and supposedly highly functional options, usually at mid-range prices.

They’re selling nice things, but maybe more importantly, they’re selling a confidence in those things, and an ability to opt out of the stuff rat race. . . .

One-thousand-dollar mattresses and $300 suitcases might solve choice anxiety for a certain tier of consumer, but the companies that sell them, along with those that attempt to massage the larger stuff economy into something navigable, are still just working within a consumer market that’s broken in systemic ways. The presence of so much stuff in America might be more valuable if it were more evenly distributed, but stuff’s creators tend to focus their energy on those who already have plenty. As options have expanded for people with disposable income, the opportunity to buy even basic things such as fresh food or quality diapers has contracted for much of America’s lower classes.

For start-ups that promise accessible simplicity, their very structure still might eventually push them toward overwhelming variety. Most of these companies are based on hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital, the investors of which tend to expect a steep growth rate that can’t be achieved by selling one great mattress or one great sneaker. Casper has expanded into bedroom furniture and bed linens. Glossier, after years of marketing itself as no-makeup makeup that requires little skill to apply, recently launched a full line of glittering color cosmetics. There may be no way to opt out of stuff by buying into the right thing.

All of the following, IF TRUE, would weaken the author’s claims EXCEPT:

Answer & solution

  • A

    the annual sale of companies that hired lifestyle influencers on Instagram for marketing their products were 40% less than those that did not.

  • B

    product options increased market competition, bringing down the prices of commodities, which, in turn, increased purchasing power of the poor.

  • the annual sales growth of companies with fewer product options were higher than that of companies which curated their products for target consumers.

  • D

    the empowerment felt by purchasers in buying a commodity were directly proportional to the number of options they could choose from.

Solution

Easy

Three options, if true, weaken the author's claims; one does not. The author's claims include: influencers strongly drive purchasing; more options create anxiety (not empowerment); the market is broken and tilted away from the poor; and firms with few options succeed by limited offerings. The EXCEPT is the option that does not contradict these — it is either neutral or consistent.

A

Firms using Instagram influencers sold 40% less than those that didn't. — Weakens, so not the answer. The author claims influencers are powerful drivers of buying ("a ghost… in the retail machine"). Evidence that influencer use reduces sales undercuts that claim.

B

More options lowered prices and raised the poor's purchasing power. — Weakens, so not the answer. The author argues expanding options has contracted opportunity for lower classes. Evidence that more options helped the poor contradicts this.

C

Firms with fewer options grew faster than firms that curated for target consumers. — Correct (does NOT weaken). The author favours the few-options model over the choice-overload market. Evidence that fewer-option firms grow faster is consistent with the author's view, not damaging to it. Hence it is the EXCEPT.

D

Buyer empowerment was directly proportional to the number of options. — Weakens, so not the answer. The author holds that more options breed anxiety, not empowerment. A direct proportion between options and empowerment contradicts the core "choice anxiety" thesis.

Option C is correct. It aligns with the author's preference for limited-option firms, so it does not weaken the claims — making it the EXCEPT.

CAT 2019 Slot 1 VARC Q5: All of the following, IF TRUE, would weaken the author’s claims EXCEPT: — Solution | TheCATExam