Bunuel wrote:
The Board of Directors of the Lejon Etymological Museum imposed a 50-cent admission charge in order to reduce the Museum's deficit. Attendance remained stable and there was no protest from the public, so, six months later, the Museum announced that the admission price would go up to $1.50.
It can be inferred that, in increasing the admission charge to $1.50, the Board of Directors assumed that:
A. People did not protest the initial charge because they felt it was necessary to keep the Museum in operation.
B. Since people did not protest the initial charge, they will also accept the raised price.
C. Since $1.50 is three times the original charge, it is probable that attendance will drop as the public protests the increase.
D. The increased revenue from admissions will enable the Museum to expand its operations.
E. Tripling the admission cost every six months will not cause a drop in attendance.
Kaplan Official Explanation:
Step 1: Identify the Question TypeThis is an Assumption question, as it asks for what the Board of Directors assumed.
Step 2: Untangle the StimulusOn the basis of the evidence that there was no protest to a 50-cent museum admission charge, the Board raised the price to $1.50.
Step 3: Predict the AnswerAn assumption connects the stated evidence to the conclusion. Here, the Board must have assumed that just as the public tolerated the 50-cent charge, it would also tolerate the higher charge.
Step 4: Evaluate the Choices(B) is precisely what the Board assumed, and is therefore the right answer.
(A) is incorrect because there is nothing in the passage to suggest that the Board paid any attention to why the 50-cent admission charge was not protested.
(C) is not assumed. It may sound reasonable that people would protest the price hike, but this is what the Board hoped would not happen, and so is not what the Board assumed when it raised the admission charge to $1.50.
(D) cannot be said to have been assumed by the Board, because there is nothing at all in the stimulus about what the Board plans to do with the increased revenues.
(E) is not something assumed by the Board. Forgetting the fact that it would be ludicrous for the Board to assume that it can triple the admission every six months without causing attendance to drop, future admission increases have nothing to do with their reasoning about this particular increase.
TAKEAWAY: Be very clear on the evidence and conclusion of the argument, and stick to the connection between them. Irrelevant choices are quite common, and can be easily spotted by having a good paraphrase of the argument.