Bunuel wrote:
According to a recent article, tourism in country X is up 10% over the last three years. About three years ago, inflation caused a marked devaluation of X’s currency, making local goods cheaper to foreigners whose own currencies had not diminished in value. Therefore, the increase in tourism is a function of travelers wanting to purchase local products more cheaply.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Country Y had a similar currency devaluation but experienced far less impressive increases in tourism.
B. There is fear that next year X’s currency will rebound and prices will return to their pre-inflation levels.
C. Tourism tends to fluctuate from year to year for no discernable reason.
D. Three years ago, country X built a popular new amusement park that was designed with a multicultural flavor in order to attract foreigners.
E. Country X is reputed to have the most pristine beaches in its region.
Explanation:
A. Country Y had a similar currency devaluation but experienced far less impressive increases in tourism.
This Option is good contender, However we can not cannot compare country X with country Y, reason is we do not know if country Y is as famous as country X for tourism.B. There is fear that next year X’s currency will rebound and prices will return to their pre-inflation levels.
Instead of weakens the conclusion it is strengthens itC. Tourism tends to fluctuate from year to year for no discernable reason.
Out of scope.D. Three years ago, country X built a popular new amusement park that was designed with a multicultural flavor in order to attract foreigners.
This sound good. Reason, (i) event talks amusement park built 3 years back, so timing is inline. (ii) We have some reason to explain the conclusion. (iii) We do not have any other better answer.E. Country X is reputed to have the most pristine beaches in its region.
Out of scope. Answer does not explain something that happened since last three years