Situation: For five years the Souper restaurant chain has maintained

Situation: For five years the Souper restaurant chain has maintained rapid sales growth in Danport, primarily
by opening new restaurants that draw patrons away from other restaurants in their vicinity.

Goal: Souper wishes to achieve continued rapid sales growth in Danport over the next two years.

Proposal for consideration: Continue to open new restaurants in Danport during the next two years at the
same rate as in the last two years.

In light of the situation, which of the following, if true, most strongly argues that adopting the proposal would be an ineffective way of achieving the goal?



I think based on relevancy its between B and D as they are the only ones which mention new restaurant. D is a clear winner here. There might be options which weaken the argument in general but we are only interested in weakening the contents present within the proposal ( new restaurants). Will explain in further detail if it isn't clear.

This question is an emblem of tough question

maybe easy to narrow but difficult to choice between

A and D are the contenders

D basically state that Souper fill the holes, so no more customers (after all we can't do all the time to the restaurant if we have one at each meter)

D is the best. try to stay focus. me too was tempted a lot by A. Stay focus and when you are unsure re-read the conclusion. In weaken CR you attack the conclusion, basically

It was a choice between A and D for me and ultimately went for D.

A. At times at which customers find Souper restaurants too crowded, they often go to other restaurants nearby.

If the restaurant is losing revenues because people do not want to wait, then opening a new chain nearby will capture some of that loss revenue. It may or may not be profitable, but the question isn't regarding profits, it's regarding sales. This would support the proposal.

B. The Souper chain has generally opened new restaurants in locations that are in the vicinity of a large number of
other restaurants.

This is simply a rehash of the first sentence.

C. Souper restaurants generally offer a much smaller variety of foods than many of the other restaurants in their
vicinity.

There's nothing in the original argument that mentions the variety of food. Irrelevant.

D. Virtually all potential sites for new Souper restaurants in Danport are located in the vicinity of existing Souper
restaurants.

Without any additional information, this statement can either weaken or strengthen the proposal. If for example, information from A) was given as true, then this will strengthen the proposal. However, we do not have any other information other than what is stated. Since the situation already mentions that new Souper restaurants draw patrons away from other restaurants nearby, opening additional Souper restaurants nearby will have minimal effect.

E. Souper restaurants have always offered meals that are somewhat less expensive than meals at restaurants that
compete with Souper for patrons.

Irrelevant as the argument is not about the price of meals.

Hi Carcass,

I don't think option A weakens the conclusion. In fact A strengthens the conclusion. If Souper restaurants are doing so well that they get crowded and customers go to other restaurant, it shows there is potential to open more Souper restaurants in vicinity and get more sales. Thus, strengthening the conclusion.

What's your thought?? Did I miss something??

Good Question Marcab. Kudos!
Answer is D since this will seriously doubt the business plan of the restaurant.

D is clearly correct. It perfectly ties adds a new premise that undermines the conclusion, which is necessary for a "weaken" question.

I picked A so long as I've concluded that double negation in form of " argues that......would be an ineffective way...." asks us to find a strengthener, however after reviewing the explanations saw that such understanding is incorrect and weakener is suppposed to de detected.

Situation: For five years the Souper restaurant chain has maintained rapid sales growth in Danport, primarily by opening new restaurants that draw patrons away from other restaurants in their vicinity.
Goal: Souper wishes to achieve continued rapid sales growth in Danport over the next two years.
Proposal for consideration: Continue to open new restaurants in Danport during the next two years at the same rate as in the last two years.

Type -weaken

A. At times at which customers find Souper restaurants too crowded, they often go to other restaurants nearby. - strengthens - Souper Restaurants are losing customers to other restaurants because their restaurants are too crowded. This supports the idea that Souper Restaurants SHOULD build more restaurants.

B. The Souper chain has generally opened new restaurants in locations that are in the vicinity of a large number of other restaurants. - Irrelevant
C. Souper restaurants generally offer a much smaller variety of foods than many of the other restaurants in their vicinity. - Irrelevant
D. Virtually all potential sites for new Souper restaurants in Danport are located in the vicinity of existing Souper restaurants. - Correct - If any new restaurant will be built in the potential sites, the new ones will eat into revenue of the existing ones'
E. Souper restaurants have always offered meals that are somewhat less expensive than meals at restaurants that with Souper for patrons. - Irrelevant

Answer D

Hi Moderator,

Please add the word 'compete' after 'that' and before 'with' in choice E. I didn't understand it and ended up wasting time in re-reading it

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.