I think its D.
The author is assuming that Brits from 30years ago did not make foreign travel just cuz they did not have enuff money. That may not be true. Maybe Brits from 30 years ago thot that foreign countries were not as beautiful as Britain, maybe they did not get visas at that time, we don't know
But by making that assumption D he is saying that Brits from 30 years ago always wanted foreign vacation but could not afford it and now that percentage of foreign travel is up that means Brits have more money at their disposal for vacationing.

Hey All,

I'm wondering where this questions came from, because if the official answer really is E (as you seem to say), I can't agree. It draws the wrong connection.

Conclusion: British people have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.

Premises: 30 years ago, small percentage of British vk'd abroad. Way more now. VK'ing abroad is expensive.

Assumption: It has anything to do with money.

(A) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacation abroad.
Problem: We don't need this to make the argument. In fact, it weakens our argument. We want people to travel if they have enough money to do so.

(B) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.
Problem: We don't care about people of other countries.

(C) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.
Problem: Domestic vacations are not part of this argument either.

(D) If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
Answer: Let's try the NOT test (if we take the opposite of the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart) to prove this one. "If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would NOT have done so." Now we have a problem. The passage wants to link the taking of vacations with having enough money to do so, but this now says that when people have enough money to travel, they don't necessarily do so. That destroys the point.

(E) If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, then they must have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
Problem: This is linking money in general to vacation money, but we're not concerned with money in general. If we take the opposite of this ("If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, they do not necessarily spend more on vacations") [paraphrase], the argument is still fine.

Not sure where this question came from, but if the answer IS E, I'm not seeing it.

Hope that helps!
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Good Question its D
_________________

One Final Try.......

It's D.

"D"

D
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

Nice question. D is the answer. It fills the gap that if British people 30 years ago had had more money, they would have vacationed abroad. This ties the premises to the conclusion.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it