Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C

If we look close, the fact that people are aware of the cruelty is implicit.

in other circuses that still attract crowds ........... no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, ...........not because the cruelty ....... was revealed.


But if we ask what can be the reason that people stopped visiting Jumbo, but still visit other circuses(where there is still animal cruelty), the answer is easily the Price being doubled. That implies price is the only difference, cruelty was already there--> people were aware of it.

Hope it helps.

option B will be right ans
if we negate option b it will shatter the conclusion

If we negate A --

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

--- Then we hurt the conclusion since the reason for the drop is based on cruelty on the animals and not because of price hike. However, this statement is similar to the statement in the stimulus - "Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. " --> Is that the reason why we eliminate A?

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.


- People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses but could be aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus. Hence it should be price hike that led to price drop in Jumbo circus --> If we negate B, doesn't it actually support the conclusion rather than breaking it?

Option A is a weakening statement as you have correctly mentioned.

Negating B:
People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses (but are aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus.) Thus the reason for not going to Jumbo Circus may not be the price difference, but the people's sentiment against animal cruelty. This inference is exactly opposite of the conlusion of the argument. Hence option B is an assumption.

1. Yes, your understanding is correct. I conveyed my agreement with your statement in the previous post about option A.
2. What you have stated in point 2 is for strengthening statements. An assumption MUST BE TRUE not IF TRUE.
3. Yes, you are right. Negating option B establishes that C caused A, not B.

this is a common pattern in gmat, kaplan 800 has this pattern. Nevertheless, this pattern is very tricky because test takers often mistakes assumption for strengthener or weakener.
A and D are OFS. E is weakener and OFS (talk about price)
B is better than C. (b/c C is OFS and strengthener and unclear and too broad)

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

not cruelty (but P^) >>> Audience drop

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

Cruelty >> Audience not drop
Mistaken negation could not be true!

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

Aware = not cruelty (so it's P^) >> Audience drop (defendant assumption)

negate: People who go to those circuses are not aware of cruelty so they will aware of the cruelty of Jumbo Circus only! Then Cruelty >>> Audience drop (hurt conclusion)

(C) People often turn a blind eye toward cruelty if it results in something beneficial or entertaining to them.

(D) The cruelty of methods used by animal trainers in the Jumbo Circus was exaggerated in the article.

(E) The higher prices on Jumbo Circus tickets were caused by a permanent need to treat animals that were injured during trainings.