A manager at a local theme park has proposed doubling the

Yes the decision has to be between (B) and (D) because they deal with the same issue. We will look in detail at why (D) is wrong.

Plan:
- Double the number of attendants to reduce congestion at entrance gate.
- So more people will visit the park, and the increased revenue will offset the cost of the extra attendants

The logic is that if the congestion is less, more people will visit.

What will show that the reasoning is flawed?

(B) The lines at attractions inside the park already make the average wait times inside considerably longer than those at the entrance.
This is much more congestion inside the park so it is unlikely that more people will turn up. A bit of reduced congestion at the entrance is unlikely to attract them if inside they have to deal with much more congestion in any case. Also, if some more people do turn up expecting less congestion at the gate, it will only increase congestion at the attractions and hence the number of people might reduce again. Hence, this points out the flaw in the plan.

(D) Many visitors opposing the plan have indicated that they prefer congestion at the entrance to potential overcrowding inside the park.
Here there are multiple red flags - what do they mean by "many visitors"? Most visitors would have been much more convincing
Also focus on "potentialovercrowding inside". It doesn't tell you whether the park is overcrowded or not. Say, if there is no overcrowding right now and even if the visitors increase by 50%, still there is no overcrowding, then the plan will succeed. This option talks about a hypothetical case and doesn't tell us what the reality is. Option (B) tells us that actually there is already overcrowding and more people will only make it worse. So option (D) is incorrect and option (B) is correct.

Answer (B)