In order to promote off-season business, Mt. Dunmore Lodge

Same here.. I'm not fully convinced with B but it sounds better than other options. The challenge that I faced with the question is "Time". As I was not convinced with all the 5 choices, I kept on analyzing...

I reached the right answer of this argument by POE although I do not insure too much about choice B. So, please post the OE for this question.

Here my explanation for my POE process.

If anybody is interested I found the OA and OE here : https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3wDa ... &q&f=false

Was a nightmare to fid this one..Hope you guys appreciate it.
The OA is B. And it is a fact that A is wrong as @eybrj2 wrote

Believe question asks about room occupancy not prices.. hence B seems correct

i agree, the situation describes the increased occupancy and not prices

yes vandygrad u r absolutely ryt as I also faced "ditto" probs as u had faced while solving this ques.

In order to promote off-season business, Mt. Dunmore Lodge made the following "Welcome Back" offer to their winter guests: guests who rent a room for at least a week during ski season can come back during the summer and get 25% off the standard summer price of any room they rent. After the summer passed, the owners of the lodge determined that the majority of their guests had taken advantage of the "Welcome Back" offer and paid the reduced rates. However, they were surprised to find they still managed to rent more rooms at full price than they did at the discount rate.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the apparent discrepancy ?

If we read the stem carefully than we get to know few points (1) majority of guests took "welcome back" offer (2) guest stayed for at least a week
and (3) in summer rooms occupancy were more for full price room than discounted rooms
Now look at the options :

(A) Most of the guests who stayed at Mt. Dunmore Lodge during the winter did not stay for a full week. Wrong: As the stem tell us that majority of the guest stayed for a week and had "welcome back" offer this option can straight be eliminated. "Most" is strong word.

(B) Those guests taking advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount were more likely to bring their families with them than were those guests who were paying full price. Correct: there may be possibility that the guest who had "welcome back" offer, visited during summer with more family member

(C) Some of the guests who received the "Welcome Back" discount also received a 10% rate reduction through their auto club. Wrong: Out of scope of the stem the discount on auto club in non-specific.

(D) In order to pay for the construction of a new gymnasium and a new pool, the owners of the lodge raised their summer prices considerably: Wrong: Owners may have increased the pay for a room but it is about occupancy rather than about revenue, so irrelevant.
(E) On average, guests who took advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount spent more money at the hotel on additional goods and services than guests who paid full price for their rooms. Wrong : same as D

Nice question

ANSWER IS B

Reading in a hurry will make many people think that B is saying the opposite of what is required in the question. It's not true.
Option B tells us that discount people brought more family members. Obviously these new people will need more rooms to stay.
Also keep in mind that the 25 % discount is only for the older customers that stayed in winter ski season and not for their families, THE ARGUMENT CLEARLY SAYS " guests who rent a room for at least a week during ski season can come back during the summer and get 25% off the standard summer price of any room they rent". ROOM .... (singular)....... not ROOMS (Plural).... The discount is valid for the old customer only for any room he/she wants. THE DISCOUNT IS NOT APPLICABLE ON ALL ROOMS EVEN IF THEY ARE BOOKED BY OLD CUSTOMER. For example A man can book 4 rooms but he will get discount on one room and pay full price of three rooms. In these three rooms his family members will stay. Therefore the new customers (although they are family members of the older customers) will still pay at full price and since such customers are more, therefore more rooms were rented at full price.

Such a poor quality question. Had it been friends rather than families in option B it would have made some sense. As families will still get discounts but friends coming for the first time in summers might take full priced rooms.

In order to promote off-season business, Mt. Dunmore Lodge made the following "Welcome Back" offer to their winter guests: guests who rent a room for at least a week during ski season can come back during the summer and get 25% off the standard summer price of any room they rent. After the summer passed, the owners of the lodge determined that the majority of their guests had taken advantage of the "Welcome Back" offer and paid the reduced rates. However, they were surprised to find they still managed to rent more rooms at full price than they did at the discount rate.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the apparent discrepancy ?

(A) Most of the guests who stayed at Mt. Dunmore Lodge during the winter did not stay for a full week.
(B) Those guests taking advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount were more likely to bring their families with them than were those guests who were paying full price.
(C) Some of the guests who received the "Welcome Back" discount also received a 10% rate reduction through their auto club.
(D) In order to pay for the construction of a new gymnasium and a new pool, the owners of the lodge raised their summer prices considerably.
(E) On average, guests who took advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount spent more money at the hotel on additional goods and services than guests who paid full price for their rooms.

For me, A and B were two option.
they were surprised to find they still managed to rent more rooms at full price than they did at the discount rate

it can happen if :-
1> if there were more new customers. So if 100 were old customers who rent a room for at least a week during ski season and claimed for discounted rate, there were 200 new customers this summer season.
Those guests taking advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount were more likely to bring their families with them than were those guests who were paying full price.


Assumption here is :- customers with family will rent more rooms. Why? what if husband comes with their wives. or their children. Do they need to rent more rooms. Might be. We don't know. You can't assume.

or Most of the guests who stayed at Mt. Dunmore Lodge during the winter did not stay for a full week. (let say 75 out of 100) so if they didn't stayed for a full week, they are not eligible for discount. so 25 people with discount and out of 75 people, lets assume even if 30 people came back, it's true that they still managed to rent more rooms at full price than they did at the discount rate.

here also you can't assume that 30 people will came back.


i don't think scope of this question limited to people who are eligible for summer discount. if it is written like that (However, they were surprised to find they still managed to rent more rooms at full price than they did at the discount rate by guests who were eligible for discount. so that eliminate possibility of (75 out of 100)

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma
More family members for the return tourists will imply more rooms at discounted price....How does this help solve the apparent paradox?
Can you plz help

In my opinion, it is not a high quality question. Here is my analysis of the problems:

"Welcome Back" offer to WINTER guests (ski season guests):
Stay for a week now, come back in summer and get 25% off the price of any room you rent

The majority of their guests (winter guests to whom this offer was extended) had taken advantage of the "Welcome Back" offer. - So of the winter guests, more than 50% came back in summer.

However, they still managed to rent more rooms at full price than they did at the discount rate.

It is certainly unexpected that in the off season, they still managed to rent out more rooms at full price than they did at discount even though majority of their winter guests came back.

Let's look for an option that resolves this.

(A) Most of the guests who stayed at Mt. Dunmore Lodge during the winter did not stay for a full week.

The argument says that majority of the guests took up the offer. So they stayed for a whole week or more. So this is against the argument. If the argument meant that of the people who stayed for more than a week, majority took up the offer (and if most of the guests did not stay for a week), then where is the discrepancy. If few people stayed for a week and half of them took up the offer, it is quite likely that more rooms will go on full rate.
So either way, I do not understand this option at all.

(B) Those guests taking advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount were more likely to bring their families with them than were those guests who were paying full price.

What does "bring in families" mean? I would assume immediate family (husband, wife, kids) and usually they rent a single family room. Also, if they do rent multiple rooms, will they not get discount on those? Not sure. "25% off any room they rent" could easily mean any number of rooms.
Yes, instead of family, "friends" or "colleagues" would have made more sense since one would expect friends to make their reservations separately and on their own. I am not convinced of this option.

(C) Some of the guests who received the "Welcome Back" discount also received a 10% rate reduction through their auto club.

Extra discounts are irrelevant. Number of rooms rented on discount are being discussed.

(D) In order to pay for the construction of a new gymnasium and a new pool, the owners of the lodge raised their summer prices considerably.

If the summer prices were actually raised, it is even more of a surprise that more people rented at full price.

(E) On average, guests who took advantage of the "Welcome Back" discount spent more money at the hotel on additional goods and services than guests who paid full price for their rooms.

Extra spending is irrelevant. Number of rooms rented on discount are being discussed.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

One of the toughest things about this question is fully understanding the puzzling phenomenon described. Here's the discrepancy we're asked to resolve: How can it be that most winter guests availed themselves of discounted pricing, yet the lodge nevertheless rented more rooms at full price? Clearly it's a numerical mystery, which will require a numerical solution. (B) provides such an answer: If the discounted folks were comprised mainly of families, packing in more guests per room, while the full-price guests tended to come solo with fewer guests per room, then it's easier to explain how there could be lots of discounted guests wandering around the hotel but more rooms rented at full price. (B) wins.

Notice that the solution to the paradox hinges on the recognition that elements in the evidence and conclusion that appear to be similar are in fact totally different things (number of guests versus number of rooms). In other words, the paradox centers around a scope shift.

An 800 test taker suspects that in Paradox questions, some sort of shift between the argument's evidence and conclusion may be at the heart of the seeming contradiction.

(A) These guests aren't even eligible for the summer discount, so they play no part in the argument or the confusing result.

(C) That some people got an added discount doesn't serve to explain the paradox. The relevant comparison is between discounted guests and nondiscounted guests, so the fact that some discounted guests are enjoying even greater savings doesn't change a thing.

(D) The argument centers on a full versus discounted rate. What that rate is is irrelevant; it does nothing to explain why more rooms were rented at full rate in light of the evidence.

(E) goes beyond the scope of the passage. Other charges above and beyond room rates are never discussed and are therefore not an issue.

An 800 test taker doesn't hesitate to work out actual examples to clarify her understanding of a numerical concept. Here, imagine, for instance, that the hotel has 10 rooms, and rents three at a discount and seven at full price. Now suppose that the discounted rooms contain five people per room, while the full-price rooms each contain one person. Voila! More full-priced rooms than discounted, but more discounted guests than full-priced ones.

Man. This makes no sense when we try to think a little more critically. I got the right answer but B was the only one that made a little sense.

Even then while analyzing the correct answer there are just too many assumptions that the test taker must take for granted.
Like is the discount for the guests applicable for all their family members or only for the guests. we have to assume the later to ensure the argument is sensible.

Point being while solving CR questions, it is sometimes a little hard to understand when we can assume / take certain thing for granted. Have a little issue with drawing the line for assumptions from our part.

I am in complete agreement, my friend.

It appears to be a tenuous line at times: what is an unwarranted assumption and what is a common sense, logical connection?

It’s easy to say that all the answers match up logically with the passage. However, what is “common sense/logical” vs. what is an unwarranted assumption that goes too far is a very blurred distinction in some of these questions.

The advice I was given was to stick to the official guide questions. Unfortunately, I find myself practicing all of these other questions despite the proffered advice.




Posted from my mobile device