A study conducted over a 6-month period analyzed daily attendance and

Here's the paradox boiled way down: when there's no special exhibit at the museum, fewer people go, but the ones who do show up stay longer.

Four of the answers will help explain why this is happening. One won't.

Here's (B):

How would a plan that was never enacted explain anything? Hold on to (B).

Here's (C):

Okay. Imagine you're going to the museum to see a special exhibit so that your friends will be impressed. If that's your motivation for going, you're probably not going to spend a ton of time checking out the art, right?

So this would explain why people are, on average, spending more time at the museum when there's no special exhibit -- the absence of the exhibit is weeding out all the weirdos who aren't actual art fans and just want to impress their friends.

Put another way, when there is no exhibit, the true connoisseurs are going to come out, and those folks are likely to linger.

Because (C) explains the paradox, and we're looking for the one that doesn't explain it, (C) is out, and we're left with (B), which does a whole lot of nothing.

I hope that helps!

Each of the following, if true, could help to explain the differing average lengths of visits to the museum EXCEPT:

(A) Visitors to the museum during special exhibitions tend to have narrower artistic interests, and do not view as many different exhibits during their visit.
This definitely address the issue and gives ample reason as of why the time window taken by the vistors are more therefore eleminate

(B) A plan to extend normal museum hours during special exhibitions was considered but not enacted during the period studied.
This doesn't have the slighest impact on the core issue or the paradox at hand therefore let us eleminate therefore our option

(C) Many people who go to special exhibitions go simply for the prestige of having been there.
Thie sentence even though doesn't address the major issue of time constraint however we can still assume the people who attend the special ocassion has no artistic taste therefore spen less time , therefore let us eleminate

(D) Admission tickets to the special exhibitions at the museum are issued for a specific 1-hour period on a specific day.
This even though doesn't address whether more time is allotted for non-special occasion however we still can make aasumption more time is allotted during normal days therefore out

(E) Many people who go to special exhibitions are on organized tours and do not have the opportunity to browse.
This definitely helps us in understand why the total time utilized is pretty low therefore out

THerefore IMO B

A study conducted over a 6-month period analyzed daily attendance and average length of visit at the local art museum. The results showed that when the museum was not featuring a special exhibition, attendance tended to be lower but patrons spent an average of 45 minutes longer in the museum than when it was featuring a special exhibition.

Each of the following, if true, could help to explain the differing average lengths of visits to the museum EXCEPT:

(A) Visitors to the museum during special exhibitions tend to have narrower artistic interests, and do not view as many different exhibits during their visit.
(B) A plan to extend normal museum hours during special exhibitions was considered but not enacted during the period studied.
(C) Many people who go to special exhibitions go simply for the prestige of having been there.
(D) Admission tickets to the special exhibitions at the museum are issued for a specific 1-hour period on a specific day.
(E) Many people who go to special exhibitions are on organized tours and do not have the opportunity to browse.

It was between B and C - extended hours vs prestige.
In B had the hours been extended it would made matters more complex and instead of explaining gone altogether in the other direction. Since such thing never happened the hours were same. Now, if hours are same then what that failure of that extended plan could possibly do in explaining?? Nothing as such as it holds no merit.
C, on the other hand, gives a hint that people may have preferred to go there just for attendance and nothing else, eventually staying as little as possible.

Answer B.

Hi Expert,

Can you please explain option D. In my opinion, the premise states that attendance on normal days is lower than on the ones when museum hosted an exhibition. The paradox is that the higher attendance did not ensure higher stay of the visitors.
I didn't understand how Option D affects/ explains the paradox since even after the tickets were sold for a very short duration, the attendance was higher, and stay was lower. What is the implication of this situation on the paradox?

I think the issue is that choice (D) is not well worded. As a result the meaning the question writer meant is different from your interpretation.

The meaning is not that the tickets are sold for only one hour but rather that they are good for only one hour of attendance.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.