According to a recent article, tourism in country X is up 10% over the

Question

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.

gloomybison · Answer

A. Country Y had a similar currency devaluation but experienced far less impressive increases in tourism.
This may be tempting, but just because Country Y didn't experience a surge in tourism it doesn't mean that Country X will have the same fate. There may a lot of different dynamics affecting Country Y

B. There is fear that next year X’s currency will rebound and prices will return to their pre-inflation levels.
It doesn't matter, we are trying to explain what happened so far in 3 years. Currency can rebound back to its normal value next year for all we care.

C. Tourism tends to fluctuate from year to year for no discernable reason.
We know that it increased %10 over the last 3 year

D. Three years ago, country X built a popular new amusement park that was designed with a multicultural flavor in order to attract foreigners.
 Correct

E. Country X is reputed to have the most pristine beaches in its region.
These beaches exist always. They didn't pop out to existence 3 years ago. We are looking for some trigger that happened 3 years ago to boost tourism

aishu0091 · Answer

Hey just wanted to understand how we can conclude that the introduction of an amusement park designed to attract foreigners has yielded the expected results? it could have been introduced but not necessary that the objective was fulfilled i.e. the park could have failed to attract customers

TasnimZR · Answer

Why D is correct and C is wrong? Can't understand. Please explain.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

If you look at "C" closely, does it really weaken our conclusion that Foreigners are coming for cheaper products and not for something else?
"D" on the other hand provides an alternative to why foreigners might be coming into the region, and that makes your belief into Author's conclusion weak! Hope it helps.

Posted from my mobile device

Fdambro294 · Answer

I agree. Great analysis.

Saying that there is “no discernible reason why” something happens doesn’t weaken the causal connection as much as presenting an alternative explanation (ie, the foreign tourists might be coming for this specific amusement park designed to attract them)

Also, C specifically says that “from year to year”, tourism tends to fluctuate.

Our situation in the argument is one in which tourism has steadily increased for 3 years. Therefore, if tourism usually seems to fluctuate in a random pattern, what caused the 3 year, consistent increase?

Ghostrider3147 · Answer

The strategy I follow for weaken is, if Conclusion says that 
 X causes Y
then for weakening the Conclusion we need to find reason Z that can cause Y.

Similarly, in this ex. Cheap products causes increase in tourism. 
Option C- fluctuations cannot cause increase in tourism.
Option D- amusement park made to attract tourists can cause increase in tourism.
Hence, option D.

Posted from my mobile device

Foreheadson · Answer

But D has many flaws. Amusement park was built 3 years ago, so why 10% increase this year over the last 3? Also, amusement park does not guarantee that the foreigners shall visit country X.

According to a recent article, tourism in country X is up 10% over the

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

According to a recent article, tourism in country X is up 10% over the

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