The argument draws the conclusion on the assumption that greater spending means greater availability of food and lesser spending means lesser availability of food.

B) If the spending is less per meal, then the total number of meals available could well remain the same (or even be greater) even if the total amount spent is lesser.

D) cannot be the answer as it is just irrelevant.

Hi,

Initially even i was convinced for B as the answer, but selected C(as the best choice).
The argument talks about "ski lodges spend considerably more on transporting and feeding guests ".
choice B does not explain the increase in transportation costs.
whereas C can be taken for an increase in both Transportation and feeding costs.

Can somebody please help reason this ??

Thanks,
Garv

The reason that they spend more during the season is because the type of food in winter is more expensive, not because they are serving more quantity of food. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that food in quantity will be less available during the off-season. B it is

Hope its clear
J

Hi MacFauz ,

I am still not able to understand this question ?

During the skiing season, ski lodges spend considerably more on transporting and feeding guests than they do during the off season. : Means more guests , more food needed , more money spent

Therefore, transportation and food is less likely to be available to a guest at a ski lodge during the off season than they would be during the winter months. : Less guests , less food needed , less money spent .

Therefore anything that would weaken this conclusion would need to show more food is available or more money or more money is spent or more guests are available ?

According to me B is strengthens the question rather than weakening it .

If the guests stayed longer then this would be an indication that more money and more food needs to be spent on them .
Say in winter 5 guests stay only for a day means 5 meals .
in summer months 5 guests stay for 10 days means 10 meals .

Could you throw some light here ?

B for me.
the argument says less money is non season means less availability of food and transportation.
what can weaken this?
something that says the ski lodges can provide adequate food and transportation even with less money OR an alternative way in which the amount spent gets reduced in off-season(something like price of gas gets cheaper which reduces the spending).
let us look at the answer choices
a) It employs fewer full-time staff members than it does during the skiing season.
this does not say that ski lodges can still provide adequate food. though this implies less employees it will actually strengthen the conclusion. eg: lower chefs and waiters = lower availability of food.

b) It spends less per meal on lighter summer foods than it would to feed cold and hungry skiers.
amount spent per meal is lesser in off-season. so the amount of food these lodges consume during off season might be the same as during season, but it just costs less, leading to lower food costs. RIGHT ANSWER

c) Its guests, on average, stay for a longer time than do those who come during the skiing season.
this implies lower transportation costs as short stays means frequent transport. while this is definitely a contender, it is not better than b because it does not provide any explanation about food&transportation "availability" during off season.

d) It holds monthly expos during which chefs' best dishes are showcased.
irrelavant.

e) Some of its vehicles may be broken, and will not be replaced until the next skiing season.
this actually strengthens the argument that availability of transportation will be less during off season.

hope this helps
_________________

I'm confused between B and C.
Since the conclusion is that the food is less likely to be available during off season i picked C.
Can some one help me understand why C is not the right answer

The argument states that in winter months or the peak season more food and transportation is available to a guest at a ski lodges because they spend more on the food and transportation of guests during peak season. "B" suggests that light summer meals anyways costs less. Hence even though the ski lodges spend less it is not implied that less food is available to the guests. Hence it directly negates the conclusion.
_________________

agree that B is the answer...
narrowed down to B and D.
if B is true, then it doesn't automatically mean that food and transportation is not available...

Pre-thinking
The conclusion about the greater likelihood of transportation and food availability during the skiing season is drawn based on the assumption that the greater the expenditure on food and transportation, the greater their availability. So in order to weaken we just have to find any piece of evidence that contradicts the assumption. For example: Expenditure on food or transportation per guest during the off season is equal or greater than that during skiing seasons.

Which of the following, if true about a ski lodge during the off season, most weakens the conclusion drawn above?

a) It employs fewer full-time staff members than it does during the skiing season. OFS

b) It spends less per meal on lighter summer foods than it would to feed cold and hungry skiers. Correct!
Aligned with pre-thinking. This choice means that the resort expenditure on food/ per guest is greater during the off season than during skiing season

c) Its guests, on average, stay for a longer time than do those who come during the skiing season. OFS
Guest's vacation length is not related to the argument.

d) It holds monthly expos during which chefs' best dishes are showcased. Irrelevant
Expenditure in dishes for monthly expos doesn't help to determine id the expenditure on food/per guest is greater in one of the seasons.

e) Some of its vehicles may be broken, and will not be replaced until the next skiing season. Irrelevant

a) It employs fewer full-time staff members than it does during the skiing season. --> employees has not implication on the argument. Thus, eliminate.
b) It spends less per meal on lighter summer foods than it would to feed cold and hungry skiers. --> Correct. This choice is saying "no, it's not that we don't feed the visitors, we spend less because summer foods are lighter are not near as expensive as winter foods"
c) Its guests, on average, stay for a longer time than do those who come during the skiing season. --> great, they stay longer. It doesn't mean that they don't eat or receive transportation
d) It holds monthly expos during which chefs' best dishes are showcased. --> irrelevant. There is no connection between expos and change in seasons
e) Some of its vehicles may be broken, and will not be replaced until the next skiing season. --> irrelevant; some are broken - doesn't mean that they have no way of transporting individuals

It is the off season for skiing, not necessarily for the number of people staying in the ski lodge! It is still possible that the ski lodges have people staying in for other purposes during the off season. This is outside knowledge- "Less guests , less food needed , less money spent . ". The quantity and cost of the food may not be directly proportional. There may be more people coming in the off season, but the cost of food is still less because it is cheaper than the winter foods. So, the lodges are spending less on the food and still have enough quantity of food!

As per B, take for eg- Winter food $5/meal/day, Summer food $1/meal/day
Winter 5 guests stay only for 5 days means 5 meals . - Total cost- $125
Summer months 5 guests stay for 10 days means 10 meals . - Total cost- $50

On the other hand for C- Guests may stay for more number of days, but what if they are carrying frozen food or eat outside! This does not comment on the availability of food in the lodge.

I chose C.

I am still not convinced with B. B says less money spent per meal on light summer foods. But how does it guarantee that food will be more likely available (trying to weaken the conclusion that food and transportation will be less available ), maybe these light summer food is available to only VIP customers not for all, we never know.

Experts please help.

Hi hellosanthosh2k2,

Let's analyze the argument. It took me a minute to get a handle on this question, as it is a tricky question.

During the skiing season, ski lodges spend considerably more on transporting and feeding guests than they do during the off season. Therefore, transportation and food is less likely to be available to a guest at a ski lodge during the off season than they would be during the winter months.

I have highlighted the premise in light blue, and the conclusion in dark blue. I also underlined the part "spend considerably more". The question says, albeit subtly, that when costs go down, less food and transportation are available. How do we weaken this? We try to find an alternative reason for the costs going down.

Which of the following, if true about a ski lodge during the off season, most weakens the conclusion drawn above?

b) It spends less per meal on lighter summer foods than it would to feed cold and hungry skiers. -- Spending less per meal, so costs are down. This means that the amount hasn't changed, just the type.
c) Its guests, on average, stay for a longer time than do those who come during the skiing season. -- Completely out of scope. We do not care about the length of stay. How would this counter the conclusion that there is less food and transportation available? This might strengthen the idea that there are less food and transportation available.

Does this help?
_________________

Meh, B seems shakey at best.

OK, so you can spend less per meal. Great. But if you don't expect guests anyway, why not go even further and spend nothing on food? Relative costs are still relative.

Official Explanation:

Conclusion: Therefore, transportation and food is less likely to be available to a guest at a ski lodge during the off season than they would be during the winter months.

Premise: During the skiing season, ski lodges spend considerably more on transporting and feeding guests than they do during the off season.

Assumption: There’s no other way to interpret the facts. There is no other way to interpret the difference between the on and off season in the cost of transportation and food for guests other than those services will be less likely to be available.

This is a weaken question, as evidenced by the phrase most weakens the conclusion. This argument contains an interpretation of evidence reasoning pattern. Find the conclusion, premise, and assumption for weaken questions. The conclusion is that transportation and food is less likely to be available to a guest at a ski lodge during the off season than they would be during the winter months. The premise of this conclusion that is During the skiing season, ski lodges spend considerably more on transporting and feeding guests than they do during the off season.

The assumption for an interpretation of evidence reasoning pattern is that there’s no other way to interpret the facts. In this case, that there is no other way to interpret the facts that ski lodges spend considerably more on transporting and feeding guests during the skiing season than they do in the off-season other than that those services will be less likely to be available. Because this is a weaken question, the correct answer will attack this assumption by providing another reason why ski lodges spend less on transportation and food in the off season, other than that they make the services less available.

Choice A: No. If a lodge employs fewer full-time staff members in the off-season, then this strengthens the assumption that the lodge makes food and transportation less available during the off-season, as there will be less employees to provide those services.

Choice B: Correct. If it is true that ski lodges spend less per meal during the off-season, then the cost for food and transportation will be less than it is during the skiing season even if the services are available in the same amounts during both seasons.

Choice C: No. This answer choice strengthens the assumption. If guests stay longer during the off-season, then the fact that lodges pay less during the off-season could indicate that the services are not as available.

Choice D: No. Monthly expos of their chef’s best dishes is out of scope. This does not provide another reason why ski lodges spend less on food and transportation in the off-season.

Choice E: No. That some of the vehicles are broken during the off-season and won’t be replaced until the next skiing season strengthens the assumption in the argument that the services are less available.

The correct answer is choice B.
_________________

Plz can anyone elaborate option c clearly i am not able to understand.

Posted from my mobile device