It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 04:36

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Football is not a very popular sport in the U.S. In order to

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Football is not a very popular sport in the U.S. In order to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 04:58
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Football is not a very popular sport in the U.S. In order to make more people like the game and watch it on TV, therefore brining in more money on commercial ads, football association proposed several changes to be made, in order to make the game more active and attractive. One of the suggestions is to grow grass on the football fields that would be water resistant on the surface. This will make the game run smoother, as oftentimes football players slide on wet grass and therefore lose the ball.

Which of the following is a better suggestion, the one that will make the game more financially attractive to football clubs and investors in the U.S. and other parts of the world?

a. Building stadiums with roofs that cover 100% of the stadium is considerably cheaper than using water resistant grass in U.S.
b. Football games should be advertised more on TV in order to attract such audiences that never watched football before. This is an unsure solution, as the ROI in this case is doubtful.
c. U.S. needs to attract more foreign players to make the games more attractive by offering them such benefits that they cannot refuse.
d. Research shows that planting water resistant grass is very ineffective as it increases the costs of running a stadium and would not enable football stadium owners make much profit off the sales of the tickets. Therefore, investors should invest more in the football players' shoes to make them run smooth on wet surfaces.
e. Football should cease to exist and more money needs to be channelled in other sports, like baseball and american football. More investments into popular sports will bring in more profit off the sports.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 252

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 05:49

The question ask a better suggestion. The comparison btw the shoes and wet grass relates to the issue.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1012

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 06:04
mbaaspirant wrote:
Football is not a very popular sport in the U.S. In order to make more people like the game and watch it on TV, therefore brining in more money on commercial ads, football association proposed several changes to be made, in order to make the game more active and attractive. One of the suggestions is to grow grass on the football fields that would be water resistant on the surface. This will make the game run smoother, as oftentimes football players slide on wet grass and therefore lose the ball.

Which of the following is a better suggestion, the one that will make the game more financially attractive to football clubs and investors in the U.S. and other parts of the world?

a. Building stadiums with roofs that cover 100% of the stadium is considerably cheaper than using water resistant grass in U.S.
b. Football games should be advertised more on TV in order to attract such audiences that never watched football before. This is an unsure solution, as the ROI in this case is doubtful.
c. U.S. needs to attract more foreign players to make the games more attractive by offering them such benefits that they cannot refuse.
d. Research shows that planting water resistant grass is very ineffective as it increases the costs of running a stadium and would not enable football stadium owners make much profit off the sales of the tickets. Therefore, investors should invest more in the football players' shoes to make them run smooth on wet surfaces.
e. Football should cease to exist and more money needs to be channelled in other sports, like baseball and american football. More investments into popular sports will bring in more profit off the sports.

The highlighted text made me choose D.
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 07:55
Yeah, a slight change in shoe design is far cheaper than building multiple covered stadiums.

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 377

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Location: TX

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 08:32
Yes ,it should be D for the reasons stated above.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 09:03
I think this is not a good quest. All the time we heard about how to make football more attractive and at last, the quest proposed how to make a suggestion that financially attractive to the investors.
Even though shoes are cheap but it can't attract more tv watchers and thus results in bad financial consequence.
But if i have to choose, i pick D also

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 10:11
Agree with quangviet512...stupid question

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 702

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 10:19
Yes It's D.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 11:33

a. mentions a cheaper way, but does it solve the problem? we do not have all the information to properly conclude this one is the best option.
b. the statement says that 'this is an unsure solution'. it is automatically false. again, should there be more concrete data, we could possibly pick this one.
c. besides being a Godfather-like approach, we do not know about the value of those offers. building new roofs might be cheaper and a better solution, for example.
d. says the proposal with new kind of grass is inefficient and explains why. then, deals with the problem from another angle. plus, this option answers 'and the other parts of the world' part of the question.
e. obviously there just to take your attention off the main issue.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 117

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 12:27
I think they really meant SOCCER. This does not seem to be an "American" question. The author was probably British or Irish.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 2130

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2006, 12:33
This is a very weird question. <-- sorry, nothing of quality to contribute.

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

26 Sep 2006, 12:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by