We are given two premises that seem contradicting and we are asked to derive a conclusion
Premise 1: When Internet and catalog retailers are excluded, retail productivity in the United States, measured in
terms of revenue per dollar spent on employee salaries, increased more than 20 percent during the 1990s.
Premise 2: When the productivity changes of individual stores are tracked from the beginning of the decade to the end,
however, very few stores show greater than a 10 percent gain, none had more than a 15 percent gain, and
many show only very small gains.
Pre-thinking: overall there was a 20% increase in productivity. However, when tracking individual stores, none showed more than a 15% increase and very few showed an increase of more than 10%. There can be 3 reasons that can help resolve the paradox:
1. Some stores with low productivity were closed, thereby raising the "average" productivity per store
2. Some stores with higher productivity were introduced, thereby raising the "average" productivity per store
3. Most of the stores that showed an increase in productivity were those that had the highest productivity, therefore their "contribution" to the overall productivity would add to 20%
Now let's examine the answer choices:
A. This answer choice tries to explain the paradox using reason 3 above. However, the choice replaces "high productivity" with "high revenue." Remember that productivity is revenue/salary of employees. Therefore, it's not necessary that stores with the highest revenue are those who have the highest productivity. ELIMINATE.
B. This answer choice combines reasons 1&2 above. It matches them and the answer would explain the paradox and can be a conclusion. THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER
C. We are told about the overall gain, therefore we cannot conclude whether the gain was concentrated I. The beginning of the decade. The question does not provide any support for this. ELIMINATE
D. The Internet and catalog retailers were only mentioned in the beginning of the passage, and they are excluded from the author's analysis. Therefore, we can't make any conclusion about them. ELIMINATE
E. This answer is too strong to be true. At best, it attempts to use reason 1 by saying that the some store with low productivity were closed. However, we cannot go from "some stores were closed" to "the overall salary was less" unless if we make some assumptions. Therefore, this answer is wrong. ELIMINATE
Answer: B
Premise 1: When Internet and catalog retailers are excluded, retail productivity in the United States, measured in
terms of revenue per dollar spent on employee salaries, increased more than 20 percent during the 1990s.
Premise 2: When the productivity changes of individual stores are tracked from the beginning of the decade to the end,
however, very few stores show greater than a 10 percent gain, none had more than a 15 percent gain, and
many show only very small gains.
Pre-thinking: overall there was a 20% increase in productivity. However, when tracking individual stores, none showed more than a 15% increase and very few showed an increase of more than 10%. There can be 3 reasons that can help resolve the paradox:
1. Some stores with low productivity were closed, thereby raising the "average" productivity per store
2. Some stores with higher productivity were introduced, thereby raising the "average" productivity per store
3. Most of the stores that showed an increase in productivity were those that had the highest productivity, therefore their "contribution" to the overall productivity would add to 20%
Now let's examine the answer choices:
A. This answer choice tries to explain the paradox using reason 3 above. However, the choice replaces "high productivity" with "high revenue." Remember that productivity is revenue/salary of employees. Therefore, it's not necessary that stores with the highest revenue are those who have the highest productivity. ELIMINATE.
B. This answer choice combines reasons 1&2 above. It matches them and the answer would explain the paradox and can be a conclusion. THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER
C. We are told about the overall gain, therefore we cannot conclude whether the gain was concentrated I. The beginning of the decade. The question does not provide any support for this. ELIMINATE
D. The Internet and catalog retailers were only mentioned in the beginning of the passage, and they are excluded from the author's analysis. Therefore, we can't make any conclusion about them. ELIMINATE
E. This answer is too strong to be true. At best, it attempts to use reason 1 by saying that the some store with low productivity were closed. However, we cannot go from "some stores were closed" to "the overall salary was less" unless if we make some assumptions. Therefore, this answer is wrong. ELIMINATE
Answer: B