A recent study of Brooklyn pubs showed that out of a large number of

Question

A recent study of Brooklyn pubs showed that out of a large number of pub-goers surveyed, those who visited pubs more than two times a week typically spent more money per visit than people who visited pubs two times a week or less. Therefore, people trying to curtail pub expenses this month onwards should limit their visits to maximum two times a week.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the author’s conclusion?
 
A. The study’s result only holds true for Brooklyn pubs, not for pubs in other boroughs in New York.

B. Many insolvent pub-goers today used to frequent pubs more than two times a week.

C. Brooklyn pubs are now offering attractive discounts to customers who frequent their pubs more than two times a week, and are likely to continue to do so for a year.

D. The study shows that pub-goers who visit pubs more than two times a week typically frequent high-end pubs with prestigious cover charges.

E. The study fails to mention whether pub-goers frequent pubs alone or in the company of friends.

kntombat · Answer

The OA for this question has to be C  , as it is the only option present which is giving a proper reason as to why people frequenting Brooklyn pubs more than two times a week will not end up spending more than those who frequent the pubs less than two times a week.

Option D is out as it strengthens the conclusion.

Option A, B and E are out as when considered they contribute irrelevant information.

APOGEE · Answer

I doubt answer to be c, as A weakens the argument author is making regarding pubs, when option A will ba supplied fallacy of hasty generalization will follow and will weaken the statement. Please help me regarding this.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

jrk23 · Answer

Can you please explain how option "D" is a strengthener?

If they are paying more charges than even if they go max 2 times it will still be on higher side.

abhik1502 · Answer

In my opinion both C and D are contender for being right or wrong.

C could be wrong on ground-- It might possible that visit of 3 times is so high that minimal offer discount will not able to cover for the extra charge. SO total spending will not come down significantly.

D could be right on ground -- As one who visits currently 2+ times goes to high-end pubs, he might continue doing so even after restricting his visit to 2 times in a week. In this case charges for high end pubs might still be higher than others.

For me option D looks more likely out here than C, as we dont have any info about discount, which might not be sufficient to cover. Whereas D says its high end pub+ prestigious cover charges

Jks3000 · Answer

Abhi077  Where is the solution ??

sony1000 · Answer

How is going to a pub more often that 2 days per week cuts down expenses as oppose to going 2 days or less ?¿?

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

A recent study of Brooklyn pubs showed that out of a large number of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A recent study of Brooklyn pubs showed that out of a large number of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards