Pretzel vendor: The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outs

Agree with E.

The vendor argues that the license fee would be prohibitively expensive due to his prediction that lower than 25 pretzels/hr will be sold in front of the art museum, which is the number required to break even. The introduction of the city hall sales figures functions as a way to cement the point regarding expected sales in front of the art museum, by providing alternate evidence that boosts the likelihood of the vendor's prediction (although as the paragraph is written, this is the potentially flawed part of the argument, the fact that there's a connection between sales at each location). E fills in the gap and states that art museum pretzel-hungry passerby < city hall pretzel-hungry passerby, therefore we can add it to the argument and infer that art museum sales < city hall sales (15/hr), which translate to the art museum sales being < 25 pretzels/hr needed to break even.

The only second thought I had when reading this was the fact that E only refers to # of people buying pretzels, and doesn't correlate that to # of pretzels sold. What if people passing by the art museum on average purchase more pretzels than city hall? That would mean there could be less people approaching the pretzel cart, but they may be buying a higher quantity. That might be overthinking the problem, though..

My answer is E. This option indicates that the pretzel vendor will not be able to reach the target for breakeven also.

@rajathpanta: thanks for sharing a nice question.

My vote is E.

First of all, this is the assumption question, which is one of the most difficult questions in CR. if you realize the question type, it will help you shorten the processing time. In this kind of question, conclusion is the most important.

Premise: must sell an average 25 pretzels /hour to break even
Premise: I only sells an average 15 pretzels /hour at my stand outside the city hall.
Conclusion: I couldn't break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum.

Assumption: the vendor means his stand outside city hall always has more customer than stands outside the art museum. if he cannot sell a average 25 pretzels/hour at his stand, he couldn't do so at the stand outside the art museum.

If you're not sure, try the NEGATION technique. Not fewer people passing the art museum than passing the city hall likely to buy pretzels. It means the vendor can sell more pretzels if his stand is outside the art museum. The vendor's conclusion fails.

That's why E.

Hope it's clear.

___________________________
Please kudo if you like my post!

Hai Vercules,

I have a doubt.. Pl clarify.

Option E says ''fewer people are likely to buy pretzel outside a museum than outside a city hall''.

Now my question is, What if the number of stands outside the city hall is more than that outside the art museum..

As per the option E, let me consider 150 people buy outside city hall and 100 people buy outside art museum.. But if there are only two stands outside the museum and 10 stalls near city hall, is it not possible that the number of customers near art museum averages to 25??

Kindly guide me where my thought process or understanding is skewed..

I have my doubts regarding a few options below. Please help.

I understand that E strengthens the argument most here. Yet, dont A,B & C also strengthen it in some way and make it more believable that art museums would be less profitable?

I understand that the question says, 'find the option that MOST strenghthens'. Yet, I read somewhere that, that's a wording that GMAC uses to avoid any confusions at a later stage so that nobody can question there final answer and that GMAC only gives ONE correct option for the question asked. For eg. in a strengthener, the GMAC would only give 1 strengthener and the other options would not strengthen it.

So my question is this:

1) In a strengthen question, should there be only 1 strengthener? Or can other there be other strengthener options as well and are we looking for the best of all the strengtheners present in some questions?

For eg. In A : 'There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.'

I understand that what is currently outside city hall has no bearing on whether the stand outside the museum would make losses or not because of the license fees.
However, let's take this scenario: The stand outside city hall has no license fee. This means that there is a chance that the profits outside the hall will be more compared to the stands outside the museum where there is a new license fee, since the stands outside the hall have no license cost in their cost price while those outside the museums do. Now, I'm not saying that this scenario has a big of chance of happening. Yet, doesnt this possibility make the conclusion more believable? If it does, then isnt it making the conclusion more believable? Isnt that the exact definition of a strengthener?

Pretzel vendor: The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside the art museum is prohibitively expensive. Charging typical prices, a vendor would need to sell an average of 25 pretzels per hour to break even. At my stand outside city hall, I average only 15 per hour. Therefore, I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a profit.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pretzel vendor’s argument?

(A) There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.
-> whats happening in city hall is not of any concern here.
(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.
-> what was happening before is of no relevance now.
(C) The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
-> number of stands may be same or less but there might be enough demand in the museums.
(D) People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.
-> we still need to have idea about the rest of the hours which can have a significant result on the end sale result.
(E) Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.
-> if few ppl are likely to buy compared to those who would


Please explain why the wrong answers are wrong.

Regards,
Sandeep

----

I have similar doubts about this question but E seems to be the only best available (GMAT's ultimate caveat) choice.

Conclusion: I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a profit.

(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.
>> Before the license PVs outside the M were making profit. Firstly this means market is good for PV outside the M. Also this is a general information about the PVs whereas argument is about a PV from CH. Not sufficient/opposite.
(C) The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
>> No greater means it can be less or same in number. IF there are less counters that means less competition. Opposite.
(D) People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.
>> Can make out much from this as we don't know about the pattern outside CH.Not sufficient

(E) Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.
>> Answer.

it s an Easy E

E says that the number of preztels sold outside city hall would be more than the museum itself.
This ssupports the argument's position

CONCLUSION -- I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a profit.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pretzel vendor’s argument?

(A) There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.
Irrelevant as we need to support the conclusion that the Pretzel vendor could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum. Knowing whether there is a current fees OR not for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall is irrelevant. INCORRECT.

(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.

So what? we are concerned with the Pretzel vendor who is operating at city hall and we have to support his conclusion that he could not even break even by selling outside the art museum. INCORRECT.

(C) The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
This option does NOT add anything. Everything remains as it is even if this is true.
Let's explore this option in more detail,
Case 1 : The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
The chances of number of pretzels sold per hour would be even less. This is in terms with the statement made by the Pretzel vendor This would support the conclusion.
But here in this option we are having the opposite case :
Case 2 : The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
Means almost equal, so how does this affect the conclusion, if the number of stands are almost equal.

(D) People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.
Here, it is possible that the people who buy pretzels when the museum is open will purchase far more than 25 pretzels per hour, WEAKENING the conclusion that the vendor will not be able to earn a profit.
Since the correct answer choice must STRENGTHEN the conclusion, eliminate D.

(E) Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.
To strengthen that argument, we either need an answer that confirms everything the vendor assumes OR that points out that the situation is even worse than the vendor thinks it would be.

Answer E describes how the situation would be even worse because the potential customer base would be even lower than what the vendor sees at city hall.
CORRECT.

Let’s start by breaking down the argument.

Premise: Given the new license fee for selling pretzels outside the museum, a vendor would have to sell 25 pretzels per hour to break even.

Premise: Outside city hall, I sell only 15 pretzels per hour.

Conclusion: I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a profit.

There is a huge gap in this argument. The evidence given is the number of pretzels the vendor sells outside city hall, while the conclusion is about operating a pretzel stand outside of the museum. So, one way to strengthen the argument is to connect the information about sales outside city hall to the conclusion about sales outside the museum.

(A) There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.

The argument gives us no reason to believe that the absence of a fee for operating outside city hall would have any effect on the profitability of operating outside the museum. So, what this choice says does not affect the argument.

(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.

This choice is a little tricky. The argument concludes that profitably operating a pretzel stand outside the museum is not possible now that vendors have to pay the new fee. This choice is related to that conclusion in that it says that before the new fee was imposed, vendors operating outside the museum were making profits. So, this choice and the conclusion combine to make a plausible before-and-after contrast, and therefore a test-taker might be tempted to pick this choice.

However, we are not looking for a contrast or for a statement that is merely plausible. We are looking for a strengthener.

(C) The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.


One way to strengthen the argument is to better connect the information about operating a pretzel stand outside city hall with the conclusion about operating a pretzel stand outside the museum. So, this choice could be tempting, because it does provide information that relates the environment for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall to that for operating a pretzel stand outside the museum.

However, in saying that the number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall, this choice does not give us clear reason to believe that the situation outside the museum is not as good as the situation outside city hall is for selling pretzels.

“No greater than” does not tell us whether the number of pretzel stands outside the museum is “the same as” or “much smaller than” the number outside city hall. If the number outside the museum were much smaller than the number outside city hall, then there would be less competition outside the museum than there is outside city hall, and it would be conceivable that a vendor could sell many more pretzels outside the museum than the vendor could sell outside city hall.

So, since we can’t tell what exactly this choice indicates about how the situation outside the museum compares to the situation outside city hall, this choice does not strengthen the argument.

(D) People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.

What this option adds to the argument is not clear. Does it imply that the pretzel-selling business outside the museum should be strong? Do people who go to the museum buy pretzels? We don’t really know. What we can tell is that this choice doesn’t say anything that supports the conclusion that selling pretzels outside the museum cannot be done profitably.

(E) Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.


This answer choice is not great. It seems to indicate that conditions for selling pretzels outside the museum are not as good as those outside city hall. At the same time, it does not address the question of whether there are more pretzel vendors outside city hall than there are outside the museum. That fewer people passing by buy pretzels outside the museum than outside city hall could be offset by there being fewer vendors competing outside the museum than competing outside city hall.

Nevertheless, we have clear reasons to eliminate all the other choices. So, this choice, weak as it is, has to be the OA, as it does say something that could be somewhat reasonably construed as connecting the evidence, which is the number of pretzels the vendor can sell outside city hall, and the conclusion, which is about selling pretzels outside the museum. In other words, by weakly indicating that selling conditions are not as good outside the museum as they are outside city hall, this choice confirms what the vendor says about not being able to sell 25 pretzels per hour outside the museum, given that the vendor sells only 15 per hour outside city hall.

The correct answer is E.

The author concludes that he cannot break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum let a lone turn a profit.

We are asked to strengthen his position
(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.

B is a punishment of an answer as students are poised to think this is part of an assumption.
Students think that selecting this answer reinforces any uncertainty that the vendor could make money. However, this answer choice states "vendors...were making profit". The argument made is that the author cant' break even. So for all we know existing art museum vendors are breaking even.

Thus, B doesn't remove doubt.

(E) 100% reinforces the conclusion that the author can't break even let alone turn profit as it cites a fact that supports his case: the fact there are fewer potential customers at the art museum than at city hall.

Premise: license fee at museum location is too expensive, need to sell 25 pretzels/hr, currently only selling 15/hr at city hall.
We need to strengthen conclusion: cannot break even or make a profit at museum location

(A) There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.
-- irrelevant, doesn't help us determine if he COULD make profit or break even at the museum

(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.
-- irrelevant, this is other pretzel vendors, we are only concerned with our vendor (maybe he's superior to them at selling pretzels)

(C) The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
-- so it's less than or equal to the number outside city hall, this doesn't tell us anything

(D) People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.
-- just says there's a high volume of customers during the hours the museum is open, but doesn't compare it to the city hall

(E) Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.
-- out of a ratio of total people passing each location, less are going to buy pretzels at the art museum. This support the conclusion, also only C and E actually compare the 2 locations, so we can narrow it down that way.

I exactly thought the same thing. How do we know whether we are overthinking the problem? AjiteshArun, please help!

Hi CAMANISHPARMAR,

That's a tough question.

In this case, we should not go with "doesn't correlate that to # of pretzels sold". The "does not" bit is a problem, because we should absolutely believe that the number of people likely to buy pretzels is related to the number of pretzels sold. That is, saying that X is not a perfect indicator of Y is not the same as X is not an indicator of Y.

More generally, we should always check whether there is a better option in the set of 5 options given to us. If there isn't, we go ahead even if we don't think that the option we're about to mark is perfect.

Thanks, AjiteshArun

Nice explanation!

In answer option 'D' we can infer that people will only buy pretzels during the open hours of the museum. So if the people are buying for example 15 per hour in those open hours but none when the stand is closed then the no. of pretzels sold per hour would be less in total compared to the city hall where there is no restriction in terms of operating the stand(for example 5 open hours for pretzel and 10 hours for city hall). In contrast to 'E' which intends to conclude that the majority of customers are gonna be passer-by. Since we know that majority of the customers for the stand would be those coming to the museum than the passer-by then why are we giving importance to 'E' over 'A' GMATNinja @veritasprep

Museum needs 25/hr to break even with the cost.
My city hall results only in 15/hr.

Conclusion: I will not break even at the museum. (because I am at 15/hr but need 25/hr)

Prephase: To strengthen, prove that I will not break even at the museum.
Museum conditions should be worse or equal to that of the city hall in terms of SALES OF PRETZELS.
This gives <= 15/hr which would not allow me to break even.


(A) There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.
-- Out of scope. This is a difference in conditions here with licensing fee. However, we don't know how a licensing would impact the SALES OF PRETZELS.

(B) Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.
-- Out of scope. About other people's performance we are concerned with our performance.

(C) The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.
-- Opposite. If there is less competition potentially, we might have actual better sales conditions near the museum.

(D) People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.
-- Out of scope. Does not offer comparison in conditions and is irrelevant.

(E) Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.
-- CORRECT. We have condition here that would make the art museum have worse conditions regarding the SALES OF PRETZELS.