MAnkur wrote:
Isn't the revenue equals total income minus the expenses/spents. In that case option E talks about an alternative that would save on the expenses thereby increasing the revenue. No proper reasoing is available in posts for eliminating option E. Further, option B as explained by Payal, kindly clarify more on the phrase "as long as diners seated at standard tables"
Hi
MAnkur - happy to chime in and respond to this point!
Revenue refers to the total income received, irrespective of costs.
Net income, or
profit, are what we use to describe total income (or revenue) minus expenses. So, in this case,
(E) is irrelevant to us here, as we're concerned with explaining the expected increase in revenue - not profit. Also, keep in mind, that they're expecting an increase - not just a lesser decrease, so
(E) wouldn't hold much ground even if we were taking profit. That said, the revenue vs. profit distinction is an important one to keep in mind with questions like this one!
So, if we're looking for an explanation as to why revenue would increase despite no change in menu, prices, or hours of operation - we need some other explanation as to why the revenue (or total income) would be expected to increase.
(B) does this for us, as it gives us reason why within the same pricing structure and hours of operation, we could expect revenue to increase - as total customer served could be expected to increase with a higher potential for turnover.
I hope this helps clarify!