Is table 1 mistakenly or deliberately missing information? The car density for Germany is missing in the table. Is it because the candidate is meant to ask for that data? Additionally it misses the units to the car density and annual lubricant consumption. Is the candidate supposed to know that the car density would be the no. of cars per inhabitant and annual lubricant conumption would be in kg/year or is the candidate supposed to ask the interviewer for these details?
(edited)
Thanks! I appreciate your explanation!
Could you explain what the rationale behind the market sizing is? What I read: - Turkey and Russia have high market growth in general and growth for premium motor vehicles, Germany not - Turkey has higher car density as Russia, and for Germany there is no data What I know / researched: Population of Germany: 84m Population of Turkey: 86m Population of Russia: 144m I would conclude that: - Russia should has the biggest market due to pure size of country - Then Turkey, and finally - Germany is the looser as they are not mentioned as high growth and are the smallest in terms of population And alternative, I could accept would be, that That Turkey is first, then Russia, as the car density is higher The solution says that: Turkey is the loser and therefore has the smallest market size, then comes Germany and russia is the winner But I can not find any data that would bring me to the conclusion that Germany is not the worst in terms of sheer market size Could anyone explain to me?
Hi Mario, Since we are talking about the size of the lubricant market, it would not be correct to simply compare the size of the population. The size of the lubricant market should be calculated as the number of cars in one country x the amount of lubricant used for a car. the number of cars can be calculated as density/1000 x population. I personally think it would be helpful to clarify the meaning of density as I assumed it to be the number of cars/km2, which definitely complicated my calculations. Maybe it's just me.