I see that since my last post, (C) is gaining some traction in the thread. I would like to address why this answer choice is
not what we are seeking here. The idea is that if people are already in the area spending money, and they
then happen to take in a show at the Farmsley Center, the Center itself is not the
driver of the economic success of downtown Metropolis—the arrow of causality is reversed. Apparently, downtown
shopping is the driver, the Center a beneficiary of such success. My quick take on each of the answer choices is as follows (you can read more about (B) and (E) in my earlier post):
Quote:
(A) People who do not attend a Farmsley Center show spend $103 on average when shopping in the downtown area.
Obviously, if people who do
not take in a show at the Center tend to spend more than those who do at downtown-area businesses, then the effect of the figure cited as evidence in the passage, the $96, is diminished. This fits our condition as a weakener, the opposite of the EXCEPT of the question.
Quote:
(B) Restaurants near the Farmsley Center tend to be more expensive than restaurants in other areas of the downtown.
We cannot say, without further information, whether the restaurants are more expensive because they can afford to be—i.e. that the Center attracts more people to the area—or whether the restaurants themselves could be the draw. The fact remains that people spend $96, on average, in the area during the same day that they attend some function at the Center. This is not an airtight answer, but we cannot definitely say that this new consideration weakens the claim. Leave it alone for now.
Quote:
(C) Most of the people who attend films or performances at the Farmsley Center do so because they are already in the area to shop.
As discussed above, if the majority of people go to the Center because they happen to be in the area, then the Center itself cannot be said to draw them there, and the downtown shopping district ought to get more credit than the claim gives it—i.e. downtown shopping
is a significant driver of the economic success of downtown Metropolis, even if the Center helps bring in more money. This does not fit our EXCEPT condition.
Quote:
(D) Tax revenues from all products and services sold in the downtown area have changed little in five years.
What do taxes have to do with the claim? Well, if taxes on goods and services in the area have not changed much in
five years, then it seems strange to say that the Center, built
three years ago, is fueling the economic success of that very downtown. Apparently, it is only helping to keep things about the same. Thus, this new information would weaken the claim.
Quote:
(E) Another downtown theatre is the only one large enough to show popular, newly released Hollywood films.
Maybe this other theatre is drawing in the crowds more effectively than the Farmsley Center. It can still be true that people who attend a show at the Center spend an average of $96 on the same day, but we have reason to doubt that the Center itself is the hub of the economic success in the area. In other words, we have another weakener on our hands.
To be clear, I think the question could use a cosmetic touchup, with a change from
a significant driver to
the most significant driver, since, in real life, we often see an interwoven web of businesses and activities in an economically successful area, any one of which could be called
a (not
the) significant driver of that success. However, we also need to consider the question frame, which is not that of a must-be-true question, but one that asks us to
cast serious doubt on the claim. Open-ended questions such as this one often prove trickier because we cannot achieve the same sort of ironclad argument we might be able to reach by pointing to certain evidence in other types of passages. You simply have to go with the best of the bunch, in keeping with the linear logic that the passage presents. Here, for the reasons I have outlined above, I would choose (B).
Perhaps we may get on OE down the line, or someone from
Manhattan Prep may be kind enough to address the question.
- Andrew
close
Updated on: 13 Apr 2021, 13:14
61%
(02:18)
wrong 
