Tourists have long complained that hotel accommodations in

The decrease in tax rate will not deteriorate the hotels' revenue, because there are more tourists.

However, if it is not because of the number of tourists but of the length of the stay which makes the hotel's revenue, then the argument will be undermined.

Therefore, the OA is C.

Thanks

PREMISE----Last year, the city council, hoping to attract more tourists, lowered the hotel tax rate to 5 percent of room charges.
PREMISE--- By the end of last year, Midville had taken in no less money from hotel taxes than it did the year before
CONCLUSION-----An examination of the hotel records will show that more tourists stayed in city hotels last year than the year before.

MORE TOURISTS LED TO MAINTENANCE OF TAX COLLECTION (DESPITE REDUCTION IN TAX RATE)...

ASSUMPTION----

NO OTHER REASON ( eg LONGER STAY IN HOTELS) FOR MAINTENANCE OF TAX COLLECTION.....

MAINTENANCE OF TAX COLLECTION DID NOT LEAD TO MORE TOURISTS.... IE NO REVERSE RELATIONSHIP...

CLEAR--- " C" IS THE ANSWER.

C. The average length of a tourist’s stay in Midville hotels was not longer last year than it had been the year before.


KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE..........

If the option E would have been, people have spent more on food last year as compared to year before (and the same amount in accommodation), then would it be considered a right answer?

Answer is C. The average length of a tourists stay in Midville hotels was not longer last year than it had been the year before.

If inspite of tax decrease of 5% the tax revenue remained the same. So there are 2 options, Either they increase the price or the number of tourists increased or tourists stayed longer. Conclusion suggests that more tourists came last year, and price rise can be removed and C is the only choice if negated gives conclusion a conflict.

Hi chetanyasahu1, taxes were on room rents. So amount spend on meals is irrelevant to the argument

C is correct. Here's the breakdown:

A. The tourists who stayed in Midville hotels last year were aware that the hotel tax rate had been lowered. --> irrelevant

B. The average price of hotel accommodations in Midville was not significantly higher than in hotels in other cities either last year or the year before. --> irrelevant

C. The average length of a tourist's stay in Midville hotels was not longer last year than it had been the year before. --> Correct; only thing we have to go off of is establishing a link between people staying in the hotels to increased amount of tourists

D. There were significantly more efforts to publicize Midville as a tourist destination last year than there had been the year before. --> publicity is not mentioned in the main stem

E. On average, tourists in Midville did not spend significantly more on meals last year than they did on hotels accommodations. --> irrelevant; meals are not mentioned in the argument

Can anyone apply negation on option C and confirm the case.

Thanks.

Negation of choice C
The average length of a tourist's stay in Midville hotels was longer last year than it had been the year before.

The conclusion falls apart if the negation of option C is true,for we can't conclude that the rise in number of tourist results in the same amount of hotel taxes.

Thanks

the two most appropriate answers were A and C,while A says that tourist were aware of the lowered taxs and did not pay more than they should have ,but its a weaker choice as it implies that the hotel might have cheated the tourist and that would not have been payed in tax either therefore the choice is wrong.

Choice C is Correct becuase it states that the duration of the stay was no longer than that in the year before last year and thus larger number of tourist is the only way the hotel would have earned higher revenue and thus paid higher tax.

The passage states that the hotel tax rate was lowered last year but that Midville took in the same amount in hotel taxes. If the hotels earned the same total revenue last year and the year before the tax rate change, we would expect that Midville took in LESS money from hotel taxes last year. Since this is not the case, the hotels must have earned more revenue. The author concludes that this increase in revenue must have been caused by an increase in the number of tourists staying in city hotels last year, but this is only one possible explanation. Total revenue also would have increased if the number of tourists staying in city hotels remained the same but the average length of their stays increased last year. Thus, the author must assume that this was NOT the case in order to reach the conclusion of the passage. (choice C)

Choice D offers a possible explanation of why tourism revenue increased last year, but it is certainly not required. Even if the number of tourists staying in city hotels did increase, as hypothesized by the author, it is certainly possible that the increase was caused by a variety of other factors (ie better economy, better weather, better transportation, etc), not necessarily by the publicizing of Midville as a tourist destination.

Choice C is correct.

Hi Experts
Kindly, confrim whether below analogy is correct, although I incorrectly chose E.
B: Wrong as comparison with other cities does not tell anything moreover it is mentioned that the avg price was not higher for both the last and the year before, had it been that the average price was higher compared to other cities last year than it had been the year before, then this option would qualify as a possible weakener.
E: Wrong as we can't be sure if there was any tax collected from meals. We can also reason that we don't know whether hotel is getting that share. Although I chose this option with a prethinking that taxes did not come from any other option needs to be a necessary assumption.

Hi Experts,

I didn't understand why option C is correct.
Please help.

Thanks.

Tourists have long complained that hotel accommodations in Midville are too expensive.
Starting last year, the city council, hoping to attract more tourists, lowered the hotel tax rate to 5 percent of room charges. By the end of last year, Midville had taken in no less money from hotel taxes than it did the year before, so an examination of the hotel records will show that more tourists stayed in city hotels last year than the year before.

Tourists complained -> rate too expensive
Lower tax rate of room charges
More Tax collected (t-1) > Tax collected (t-2) —> more tourist

The logical chain is strong here. I don't find any GAP in the argument, so this must be a Defender Assumption question type. The conclusion states that because of higher tax collected the hotel must have accommodate more tourist. Is there away that this won't happen? What If the number of tourists was the same and the tourists spent more money than the year before?



Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


Yeah but how does this explain revenue was because of the increase in number of tourist? (A) is out.

We only care about Midville hotel. Others hotel are irrelevant. (B) is out.

Hmmm. This eliminates the possibility that the increase in revenue was because of longer length of a tourist's stay. Hence, he or she does not spend more money than the year before. Hang on to this.

This again does not explain whether there were more customer last year than the year before.

Had this answer choice been: "Tourists did not spend significantly more on meals last year they did LAST YEAR", this would have been a contender. (E) is out.

Only (C) is left. (C) is our correct answer.

Hello sir thanks for the explanation. Could you please help me understand why option B is incorrect


Lets Assume
Year 1 Tariffs = $50
Tax = 10%
Therefore Tax = $5

Lets Assume
Year 2 Tariffs = $100
Tax = 5%
Therefore Tax = $5

So, The average price of hotel accommodations in Midville was not significantly higher than in hotels in other cities either last year or the year before. Option B Seems correct to me. Please guide.

Any other responses will also help from other experts egmat VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Tax rate lowered by 5%.
But tax amount collected was the same last year as before.

Conclusion: More tourists stayed in hotels last year.

Since tax rate was lowered, we would have expected tax collection to be lower. But this was not the case. Reasons for this can be many:
1. More people came to stay in the hotel
2. People stayed for longer in the hotel
3. Hotels increased their room tariffs last year (which led to higher dollar amount of tax though tax rate was lower. 25% tax rate on $100 tariff would give same tax amount as 20% of $125 tariff)
etc

Conclusion: More tourists visited hotels.

We can conclude that point number 1 is the reason if other two did not happen. Option (C) says that point number 2 did not happen. It is an assumption that the argument makes.

Answer (C)

(B) Comparison of tariffs of Midville hotels with tariffs of hotels in other cities is irrelevant. We need to compare tariffs of hotels in Midville in the last year with the tariffs last to last year.
You misread option (B).

Bunuel

You may please check, the same question asked in the GMAT prep has the below answer:

C. In Midville, the price of a hotel room before taxes was not significantly higher last year than it had been the year before.

This option is not displayed in the question. Kindly edit the question if possible.

Could you please post the screenshot? It might be another version of the question. Thank you!