Currently, the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium has only

Question

Currently, the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium has only expensive theater-style seating. Most Badgers fans would prefer to pay for less expensive bench seats due to the fact that they already stand for most of the game to see as much as possible. However, patrons in other stadiums' bench seating sections often leave their seats, because the bench seats are uncomfortable, and many of those trips are used to buy food or souvenirs from stadium concession stands. Thus, if the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium replaced some of its theater-style seating with bench seating, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some fans come to the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium to support their team by waving signs, and so might choose bench seating so that they can stand on their seats

(B) the revenue from snacks ordered by fans in bench seating compensates for any revenue lost from patrons buying tickets for less expensive seats

(C) patrons of the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium who would choose bench seating would be an exception to the generalization about patrons leaving their seats more often

(D) a stadium's patrons who spend less time seated typically purchase less expensive snacks than those who spend more time in their seats

(E) if there were enough bench seating to accommodate all the Bridgetown Badgers fans interested in such seating, many fans would not be able to see the game

gmat1220 · Answer

Esay C. You forgot to remove the answer ;-)

. Well there are always exceptions to any generalization. And here author is guilty of the same. Here the arg is assuming that the theater-style seating can replaced without any loss of revenue. However the author is wrong. Those seats cant be replaced with bench seating bcos people may not abandon their seats for food as in bench seating arrangements

MHIKER · Answer

C to me. What is OA

vinzycoolfire · Answer

IMO B. the author says replacing theater style seats with bench style seats will result in profit. But how? bench style seats are inexpensive. So the money must come from somewhere else. he says in other stadiums people in bench seating make more trips to buy snacks. it is from here that the revenue should be generated. Hence B.
A.irrelevant
B.correct
C this means they will remain rooted to their seats. So they wont make any trips to buy snacks. So less revenue.
D.the  less expensive was the deal breaker for me. if it was more expensive or more number of snacks i would have chosen D.
E.irrelevant again

mattbrown12 · Answer

B for me as well. Please give the OA.

noboru · Answer

OA is C.

IanStewart · Answer

There are some sentence correction problems with the stem ('they' can refer back to the 'seats' and not the 'fans', for example) so it's not a very well-written question, but the answer is certainly C. Answer B is misleading, since it appears to be relevant, but it is not a 'criticism' of the argument at all. Rather, B strengthens the argument by suggesting that the stadium will compensate for any loss of revenue from seat sales through concessions sales. We don't want to strengthen the argument; we want to find an answer which is a criticism of the argument, and which the stem suggests is likely to be true.

We know that in other stadiums patrons leave their seats frequently to buy merchandise, but in Badgers' stadium, patrons leave their seats to 'see as much as possible'. So the patrons leave their seats at Badgers' stadium for different reasons than do patrons at other stadiums, which suggests they might not buy more concessions if bench seating is introduced, and the comparison with other stadiums is unfounded. So the answer is C.

gmat1220 · Answer

Thanks Ian. I had the sense of direction when I looked at B. The arg was going North and the criticism should point South.

vinzycoolfire · Answer

IMO the question is about a flaw in the logic. This flaw is "believing that if high priced seats are replaced by low priced ones, the revenue will increase" this is best captured by B. how does C point to a flaw in the argument?
C is the reason why there is a flaw in the reasoning, is it not?

garimavyas · Answer

C is the answer , as the goal is to improve profits and if the new seats are not left by the occupants (patrons or whatever as per knewton) , snacks wont sell so loss of revenue by cheaper seats wont be compensated by sale of snacks

and yeah i too agree that it is not a well written question

Currently, the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium has only

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