which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
According to promotional material published by the city of Springfield, more tourists
stay in hotels in Springfield than stay in the neighboring city of Harristown. A
brochure from the largest hotel in Harristown claims that more tourists stay in that
hotel than stay in the Royal Arms Hotel in Springfield. If both of these sources are
accurate, however, the “Report on Tourism” for the region must be in error in stating
A. the average length of stay is longer at the largest hotel in Harristown than it is
at the Royal Arms Hotel.
B. There is only one hotel in Harristown that is larger than the Royal Arms Hotel.
C. More tourists stay in hotels in Harristown than stay in the Royal Arms Hotel.
D. The Royal Arms hotel is the largest hotel in Springfield
E. The royal arms hotel is the only hotel in Springfield.
I went with the option D for this question. Reason:
Given: Acc to P.M published by SF -- no. of tourists stay in SF > no. of tourist stay in HT.
Also other brochure from the largest hotel in HT claims that no. of tourist stay in that hotel > no. of tourist stay in RAH in SP.
If the "Report on Tourism" must be in error then the possible cause should be based on some assumption made by the report.
Option A -- It is the opposite of what we are looking for,
Option B -- Yes, this is a possible candidate. Since if the report just looked at the size of the hotels in HT and SP and decided to base its details on this information.
Option C -- Certainly not.
Option D -- Possible candidate. Again the report could have looked at this information and concluded their report.
Option E -- No.
Between B and D, I choose D.
Please post the OE after some discussions.
D is tempting, but E is the correct answer.
D. If the hotel is largest, then its not essential that more tourists stay there.
E. If the royal arms is the only hotel, then the claim of harristown hotel can not be accurate.