For the athletic footwear question I thought answer is A. The sentence in A is pretty hard to understand but I think what its saying is that the cheaper shoes are basically a knockoff as the expensive shoes. So I thought if the cheaper shoes appear to be the same but much cheaper, then they can free ride on the brand recognition and advertising from the expensive shoes, which would solve the paradox that they're popular despite not advertising themselves. I also thought D wouldn't be the best answer because the shows and channels covering marketing strategy probably aren't the ones viewed by people shopping for shoes. How many people watch CNBC coverage of corporate strategy to decide what shoes to buy
Thanks for your question. I would recommend posting your question in the discussion here: gmatclub.com/forum/the-athletic-footwear-industry-was-revolutionized-years-ago-by-the-int-196695.html
Hey Freddy! Happy to address your point! So, the key to resolve the paradox questions, like any other "strengthen" question, is that we need to bridge the gap between the statements, not just explain one of them. We need a reason why "companies simply cannot compete in this industry without a great deal of media exposure" and "the most popular new brand of athletic footwear in the last year is not advertised on radio and television" could coexist - basically, something that explains both - not just one of these. So, to your point, we need something that allows them to achieve "media exposure" without direct "advertising on radio and television." It's a bit of a jump to say that because they are similar to more popular brands they can ride on the curtails of other brands' advertising, whereas in (D) we have proof of "media exposure" without "radio and television advertisement. The underlying gap here is that the statement (and the conclusions we may want to draw based on them!) lead us to conflate "media exposure" and "radio and television advertising" when they could in fact encompass different things! Thus, we've explained how they could possibly have gained "media exposure" without "advertising." I hope this helps!
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Fabulous explanation, especially in the last question! Thank you so much Hailey Ma'am and thanks to GMAT Club for organizing this!
Glad to hear you enjoyed the session, Rishik! Happy Studying! :)
Very well explained the last question! Not to say that rest of the presentation was any less.
Thank you for your feedback! We appreciate it! Keep it coming. Thx!
For the athletic footwear question I thought answer is A. The sentence in A is pretty hard to understand but I think what its saying is that the cheaper shoes are basically a knockoff as the expensive shoes. So I thought if the cheaper shoes appear to be the same but much cheaper, then they can free ride on the brand recognition and advertising from the expensive shoes, which would solve the paradox that they're popular despite not advertising themselves.
I also thought D wouldn't be the best answer because the shows and channels covering marketing strategy probably aren't the ones viewed by people shopping for shoes. How many people watch CNBC coverage of corporate strategy to decide what shoes to buy
Thanks for your question. I would recommend posting your question in the discussion here: gmatclub.com/forum/the-athletic-footwear-industry-was-revolutionized-years-ago-by-the-int-196695.html
Hey Freddy! Happy to address your point! So, the key to resolve the paradox questions, like any other "strengthen" question, is that we need to bridge the gap between the statements, not just explain one of them. We need a reason why "companies simply cannot compete in this industry without a great deal of media exposure" and "the most popular new brand of athletic footwear in the last year is not advertised on radio and television" could coexist - basically, something that explains both - not just one of these. So, to your point, we need something that allows them to achieve "media exposure" without direct "advertising on radio and television." It's a bit of a jump to say that because they are similar to more popular brands they can ride on the curtails of other brands' advertising, whereas in (D) we have proof of "media exposure" without "radio and television advertisement. The underlying gap here is that the statement (and the conclusions we may want to draw based on them!) lead us to conflate "media exposure" and "radio and television advertising" when they could in fact encompass different things! Thus, we've explained how they could possibly have gained "media exposure" without "advertising." I hope this helps!