The owners of gambling casinos are keen to attract inexperienced poker players because, on average, these people lose money to the casino, which increases the casino’s profits. This is because the average inexperienced player does not have sufficient skill at the game to win.
Which one of the following can be inferred from the above argument?
(A) There is always an element of chance when playing poker.
(B) The probability of winning a game of poker increases with
(C) Casinos make extremely large profits.
(D) Inexperienced players lose more money than they expect to
when playing poker at casinos.
(E) All games played at casinos involve an element of risk.
I dont know the answer and I'm confused between B and D and a bit more inclined towards D. Please help here & if possible provide the answer please.
Casino owners prefer inexperienced players because "an average inexperienced player does not have sufficient skill at the game to win". or it means "that low experience = low skill = low chances of winning" . The only inference that could be made from this is that, with more experience chances of winning would be more (reverse causality).
Ans B explains the same thing.
point D has "expect to" which doesnt help this option. a simple statement "Inexperienced players lose more money than do experienced players, when playing poker at casinos." should have been a correct choice.
Hence Ans B it is.
Black Friday Debrief