12bhang wrote:
So, does the statement as it is stand as a strengthener?
Also, choice A says that the thank you will have the same effect on both regular ones and non regular ones? What effect is this, we do not know. It could mean that both are affected in a way that they tip higher or both are affected in a way that the thank you has no effect. Or are we to assume that the effect being talked about in this option is that they will tip higher?
Suppose we change this statement- " Regular patrons are as likely to tip higher than are occasional patrons"-
Now, we don't know how likely the occasional patrons are to tip. If the likelihood is high- revenues will go up. If not, then revenues will not go up.
What do you think?
Could you suggest possible strengtheners?
The conclusion uses the word "
significantly". Because we do not know the percentages, A as it is NOT a strengthener. It could either increase the income
significantly or not, it depends on how many regular/occasional consumers the restaurant has and how much tips they left.
We have to assume that the effect will be higher tips. Because if the same effect were "no effects", then who left the tips?
A strengthener here IMO could be something like:
"All consumers who were given the "thank you" bill left a tip, and came back to the restaurant soon after"
This shows two things:
1)The effect of the bill are predictable and affect all consumers (so the case: "one consumer left a 1000$ bill, the other none, and the average was 3%" is not a realistic scenario).
2)This procedure does not discourage consumers, because they returned to the restaurant.
Hope this helps