A negative review of a popular restaurant claimed that the wait staff was rude and the food was overpriced. This review caused sales to drop precipitously which, in turn, forced the original owners to sell the business. The new owners revised the menu and dismissed most of the wait staff. After three months, however, sales had improved by less than 1%.
Which of the following, if true, forms the best basis for at least a partial explanation of why sales at the restaurant have not improved?
The new owners could not determine who were the rudest members of the wait staff.
New menu items offered by the new owners are now more affordable.
The new owners neglected to advertise the fact that the restaurant is now under new management.
The new owners began managing the restaurant during the summer, when sales are unusually high.
Another restaurant with similarly-priced menu items opened across the street.
Can anyone explain why A and E also cannot be options giving 'partial explanation' to the paradox ?
The stimulus says The new owners dismissed most
of the wait staff. So some of the rude ones (one of the reasons why sales dropped in the first instance) may have been left behind and causing the same issues? So why not A?
Another restaurant with a menu with similar prices is close by, so since the sales gets distributed, hence the sales of this restaurant 'have not improved' ?
The OA is
which is also a possibility, but why not A and E ?