Among consumers in this country who take cruises regularly

Question

Among consumers in this country who take cruises regularly, the percentage who chose High Seas cruise lines has decreased by 5 percentage points over the past five years. Since High Seas obviously relies on consumers to earn profits, these declines must have had a measurably negative impact on High Seas' earnings.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) Some trips were cut from the cruise schedule, and there were trips during which ticket sales had historically been sufficient to achieve profitability.
(B) There are many more cruise lines in existence today than there were five years ago.
(C) The number of people who regularly take cruises has increased significantly over the past five years.
(D) Five years ago, High Seas reduced the number of cruises on its annual schedule.
(E) High Seas cruises travel to several different destinations.

rsvelc · Answer

The OA is C.
It tells that an overall increase in the population might not affect the earnings of the High Seas' adversely as there could overall increase in the population optinf for High Seas' cruise ship.

But I don't understand why A can should be eliminated. I had A and C as contenders, and I went with option A. For me, both A and C seem equally good answers.

Experts, please help me differentiate between the options.

Raghav9906 · Answer

I am not an expert but this is my thought process -

As you may have noticed, there is a cause and effect situation in the prompt - decrease in percentage of consumers choosing High Seas -> low earnings. It assumes that the decrease in the percentage of consumers choosing High Seas' cruise over the past 5 years is equivalent to decrease in number of consumers. In order to weaken, an attack on this assumption will provide a deep dent. The issue with this assumption is that decrease in percentage of consumer choosing High Seas' cruise is NOT equivalent to decrease in number of consumers choosing it. For example, if 500 out of 1000 consumers were choosing High Seas before 5 years and now due to increase in population (as mentioned in option C), 4000 out of 10000 consumers are choosing the cruise, though there is a slight decrease in percentage but the number of consumers have significantly increased, rendering the conclusion invalid.

Coming to answer choice A - It says that some trips were cut - may be due to shortage of consumers? Also, it mentions that there were some profitable trips too but we don't know how many, was the number of profitable trips > trips that were cut? No clue.

Hence, option C is the best.

Hope it helps!

Malzoo · Answer

(A) is wrong because the question is not about profitability. It is about earnings

DrAnkita91 · Answer

What is the question. Only the question stem and options are mentioned. please can you tell what is the question?

Bunuel · Answer

Fixed the issue. Thank you for reporting.

rahul5657 · Answer

Correct answer-

(C) The number of people who regularly take cruises has increased significantly over the past five years.

This directly weakens the argument. Even if High Seas market share percentage declined, the total number of customers could still be higher if the industry grew.

Example:

-Five years ago: 10 million total cruise-goers, 20% chose High Seas → 2 million customers

- Today: 20 million total cruise-goers, 15% chose High Seas → 3 million customers (more revenue despite lower % share)

This proves that losing percentage points doesn’t necessarily mean losing revenue.

NupurNeha123 · Answer

Why it can’t be D ? , I thought we are suppose to weaken the reason for negative impact on HS earning which is from consumer profit current . Option D directly changes the cause from customer earning to reduced number of cruises . Am I wrong anywhere ?

VibhuAnurag · Answer

The answer is C.

The argument says that the percentage of regular cruise customers choosing High Seas has fallen by 5 percentage points. Therefore, High Seas’ earnings must have been negatively affected. The flaw is that the argument looks only at percentage share and ignores the possibility that the total market may have grown significantly.

Option (A): 
 This says some trips were cut from the schedule.   This may affect profitability, but it does not directly address the argument’s reasoning about declining market share and earnings.   So it does not seriously weaken the conclusion.

Option (B): 
 This says there are more cruise lines now than before.   This may help explain why High Seas’ percentage declined, but it does not show that earnings were not negatively affected.   High Seas could still be earning less.

Option (C):
This says the number of people who regularly take cruises has increased significantly over the past five years. This strongly weakens the argument. Even if High Seas now captures a smaller percentage of the market, the overall market may have become so much larger that High Seas actually has more customers and possibly higher earnings than before.
For example: 
 5 years ago: 
 20% of 1 million customers = 200,000 customers 
 Today: 
 15% of 3 million customers = 450,000 customers 
 So market share can fall while total business rises. This directly attacks the argument’s assumption that a decline in percentage automatically means lower earnings.

Option (D): 
 This says High Seas reduced the number of cruises on its schedule.   This may explain lower earnings, but it does not weaken the argument’s logic. In fact, it could support the conclusion.

Option (E): 
 This only tells us that High Seas visits several destinations.   This has no clear connection to the argument about market share and earnings.

guddo · Answer

Among consumers in this country who take cruises regularly, the percentage who chose High Seas cruise lines has decreased by 5 percentage points over the past five years. Since High Seas obviously relies on consumers to earn profits, these declines must have had a measurably negative impact on High Seas' earnings. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

The argument assumes that a lower percentage of regular cruise consumers choosing High Seas means fewer customers and lower earnings. But a lower percentage does not necessarily mean a lower number of customers if the total market has grown.  The key issue is the actual number of High Seas customers , not just its  percentage share .

(A) Some trips were cut from the cruise schedule, and there were trips during which ticket sales had historically been sufficient to achieve profitability.

This does not weaken the argument. If profitable trips were cut, that could help explain lower earnings, not cast doubt on them.

(B) There are many more cruise lines in existence today than there were five years ago.

This may explain why High Seas lost market share, but it does not show that High Seas avoided a negative effect on earnings.

(C) The number of people who regularly take cruises has increased significantly over the past five years.

Correct. If the total number of regular cruise consumers increased enough, High Seas could have a smaller percentage of the market but still have the same number of customers or even more customers. So the decline in percentage share need not have hurt earnings.

(D) Five years ago, High Seas reduced the number of cruises on its annual schedule.

This does not weaken the argument. Fewer cruises could reduce opportunities to earn revenue.

(E) High Seas cruises travel to several different destinations.

Wrong. The number of destinations does not address whether the percentage decline reduced earnings.

Answer: (C)

Among consumers in this country who take cruises regularly

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

Among consumers in this country who take cruises regularly

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