Mall owner: Our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely mak

Mall owner: Our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely making a profit. We cannot raise rents because of unacceptably high risk of losing our tenants. On the other hand,a mall that is fully occupied costs as much to run as one with a rental space here and a rental space there free. Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenants.

Occupancy rate is low so profits are low.
Rents cannot be raised because tenants will leave.
Cost does not increase if more tenants come. (cost of running a fully occupied mall is the same as the cost of running a mall with some vacant spaces)

So we should sign up new tenants.

The sentence is considering the cost of the proposal too. If more tenants are signed, cost of running the mall will not increase so we should sign up more tenants.

­Your reasoning is correct. There could be additional conditions that must be met for the mall to be profitable. So, bringing up another condition doesn't weaken the argument.

I am not sure I understand your question. The conclusion says "Increasing revenue is necessary to increase profits" (in a way)
Option (A) says that cutting operating costs while keeping revenue same is also possible. Hence increasing revenue is not necessary to increase profits. That is why it weakens the conclusion.

­

­Thanks MartyMurray and KarishmaB for the kind responses !

­

Mall's occupancy rate is low that we are barely making a profit. We cannot raise rents because of unacceptably high risk of losing our tenants. On the other hand,a mall that is fully occupied costs as much to run as one with a rental space here and a rental space there free. Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenants.

Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument:

A) The mall's operating costs could be cut by consolidating currently rented spaces in such a way that an entire wing of the mall could be closed up......................so this option indicates that it is not must to sign up tenants, mall can increase it s profits by decreasing existing costs as well. Thus weakener.

b)The mall is located in a geographic area where the costs for air conditioning in the summers far exceed the cost of heating during the mild winters.............so certain costs cannot be reduced and signing up new tenants is preferred. opposite......i.e., strengthener

C)The mall's occupancy rate though low, has been relatively stable during the last few years...............we need a change or a reason behind the same. This does not affect the conclusion.

D)The mall lost tenants as a result of each of the two drastic rent increases that have occurred here..............this instance supports the argument info but does not say anything regarding the conclusion.

E)None of the established tenants is likely to need additional floor space in the near future.........floor space is out of concern here.

Can someone help me explain the meaning of "On the other hand,a mall that is fully occupied costs as much to run as one with a rental space here and a rental space there free"??
If a mall is fully occupied how can it have a rental space available at all?

Yes I can.
It means this...
It is the same maintenance cost that you incur if the mall is full that you also going to incur if the mall is not occupied here and there.

Now A said the current occupants could be arranged in such a way that AN ENTIRE WING IS CLOSED UP. Now the here and there problem isn't there anymore. And you don't have to incur any cost on a completely closed up wing. No cleaners. No electricity for it. Water supply etc. You just cut off the cost.
PS: I suggest you face SC section first. Leave CR for now. Come back when you begin to ace SC

Posted from my mobile device

nightblade354 , VeritasKarishma

I m unable to decipher the intended meaning of the sentence in the stimulus "On the other hand, a mall that is fully occupied costs as much to run as one with a rental space here and a rental space there stands empty"

Please help me.

Raju

Understanding the argument -
Mall owner: Our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely making a profit. - Fact.
We cannot raise rents because of unacceptably high risk of losing our tenants. - Fact
On the other hand, a mall that is fully occupied costs as much to run as one with a rental space here and a rental space there stands empty. - Fact
Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenants. - Conclusion. "Must" signifies the minimum or a necessary condition. So the sentence means that "signing up new tenants" is a minimum or necessary condition to increase profits.

Option Elimination - Weaken

(A) The mall's operating costs could be cut by consolidating currently rented spaces in such a way that an entire wing of the mall could be closed up. - This challenges the necessary or a minimum condition or a conclusion in this case. It provides an alternate plan. Ok.

(B) The mall is located in a geographic area where the costs for air conditioning in the summers far exceed the cost of heating during the mild winters. - Out of scope. What is the scope of an argument? To weaken the conclusion, which is "we must sign up new tenants." Is this option in any shape or form related to this conclusion? No.

(C) The mall's occupancy rate though low, has been relatively stable during the last few years. -Out of scope.

(D) The mall lost tenants as a result of each of the two drastic rent increases that have occurred here. - We already know this from an argument that this is not an option. Distortion.

(E) None of the established tenants is likely to need additional floor space in the near future. - What is the scope of an argument? To weaken the conclusion, which is "we must sign up new tenants. Out of scope.

Hi KarishmaB MartyMurray AnishPassi ChiranjeevSingh egmat GMATNinja

I understood why the option A is correct as its directly attacking the 'necessary conditional conclusion'.

As i know there can be multiple necessary conditions for one goal, so if the option A was framed as - 'one must cut operating costs to increase profits. ' then this option wouldn't be a weakener ? right ? because its just another necessary condition which is not impacting the conclusion(necessary condition given in the arguement).

Kindly can you correct if this reasoning is wrong ?

Thanks !