tyildirim92 wrote:
According to the prompt, Moneyland operates the most casinos in a certain state. Moreover, Apex will still be left operating twenty casinos in the state after selling five casinos.
Does not these two premises contradict each other?
If Moneyland with seventeen casinos operates the most (=more than half) casinos in the state, how come Apex operates twenty-five casinos (=more than seventeen) in the first place?
Please enlighten us.
Hello,
tyildirim92. At first glance, these two pieces of information do seem contradictory, but a careful reading of the passage and answer choice (A) can show you why that is not so. The passage, along with the correct answer:
Quote:
With seventeen casinos, Moneyland operates the most casinos in a certain state. Although intent on expanding, it was outmaneuvered by Apex Casinos in negotiations to acquire the Eldorado chain. To complete its acquisition of Eldorado, Apex must sell five casinos to comply with a state law forbidding any owner to operate more than one casino per county. Since Apex will still be left operation twenty casinos in the state, it will then have the most casinos in the state.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?
A) Apex, Eldorado, and Moneyland are the only organizations licensed to operate casinos in the state.
Let A = Apex, E = Eldorado, and M = Moneyland. Now, picture a state that has, say, 30 counties. Since we are told that Moneyland,
with seventeen casinos, operates the most casinos in the state, we can map those out in our imaginary counties. Also, since we know that Apex,
after the acquisition of Eldorado,
must sell five casinos but
will still be left operating twenty casinos, we can be sure that Apex will own 25 casinos right after the acquisition. But we have no information on how many Eldorado casinos are being acquired. We can imagine a number such as 10 that would put Apex at 25 total casinos, post-acquisition, meaning that Apex, pre-acquisition, owns 15 casinos. We can map those out as well. The state could be carved up in the following manner, pre-acquisition:
County 1 - M
2 - M
3 - M
4 - M
5 - M
6 - M
7 - M
8 - M
9 - M
10 - M
11 - M, A
12 - M, A
13 - M, A
14 - M, A
15 - M, A
16 - M, A
17 - M, A
18 - A
19 - A
20 - A
21 - A,
E22 - A,
E23 - A,
E24 - A,
E25 - A,
E26 -
E27 -
E28 -
E29 -
E30 -
ETotal count: M = 17, A = 15, E = 10
Now, with the restriction provided in the passage that a state law forbids
any owner to operate more than one casino per county, and with the information in answer (A), that only A, E, and M operate casinos in the state, once E bows out, only A and M remain, and you can see from the situation outlined above that counties 21-25 will present a problem for A. These are the five casinos that
must be sold, per state law, and who is the only other casino owner operating in the state? Moneyland. Thus, we can conclude that, to abide by the law within the given constraints, A will sell the casinos that formerly belonged to E in counties 21 to 25 to M. The final layout of casino ownership would then appear thus:
County 1 - M
2 - M
3 - M
4 - M
5 - M
6 - M
7 - M
8 - M
9 - M
10 - M
11 - M, A
12 - M, A
13 - M, A
14 - M, A
15 - M, A
16 - M, A
17 - M, A
18 - A
19 - A
20 - A
21 - A, M
22 - A, M
23 - A, M
24 - A, M
25 - A, M
26 - A
27 - A
28 - A
29 - A
30 - A
Now, you can see quite plainly how A could go from owning 15 casinos to 25 casinos and then back to 20 casinos, while M benefits from state regulations and walks away with an additional 5 casinos. Thus, even if A were to own 20 casinos, M would own 22, and A would
not then have the most casinos in the state. It is a tricky question, the kind I would expect to see pop up on the Quant end of the test, but perhaps you could think of this as an opportunity to cross-train.
I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.