Studies performed in cinemas show that during intervals, people that

(A) The argument does not require the scientific theory to be definitively proven, only that the observed phenomenon (comedies leading to higher food sales) exists. The reasoning behind this effect—whether due to neurotransmitters or another factor—is secondary. Even if the scientific explanation is later disproven, the recommendation to show more comedies would still be valid as long as the pattern of increased food sales remains true. Therefore, the argument does not assume that the theory must be correct, making this option incorrect.

(B) The fact that increased food consumption affects calorie intake and physiology is unrelated to the argument’s goal. The cinema’s focus is on selling more food, not on how eating influences the body. Even if eating more food had a significant physiological impact, this would not affect the decision on which movies to show. The argument only needs to establish that comedies result in higher food sales, not why eating more food matters physiologically. Thus, this is not an assumption that supports the conclusion.

(D) The argument is solely concerned with maximizing food sales, not determining the primary revenue source of cinemas. Even if ticket sales or other streams (such as advertisements or membership programs) generate more profit than food, this does not affect the recommendation to show more comedies. The argument does not assume that food sales are the most important source of income—only that they can be increased through movie selection. Since the conclusion remains valid even if food sales are a minor revenue stream, this option is incorrect.

(E) The argument is comparing food sales *during the interval* between different film genres. Whether some people order food before the movie does not affect the key comparison. Even if some audience members buy food earlier, that does not change the fact that comedies lead to higher food sales than romantic dramas. The argument assumes that movie genre influences hunger levels during the interval, regardless of prior purchases. Therefore, this option does not represent an assumption on which the conclusion depends.

(C) is the correct assumption because the argument relies on comedies increasing food sales *more than all other types of films*, not just romantic dramas. If another genre stimulated even greater food sales, then the conclusion to show comedies as often as possible would not be justified. The assumption fills this gap by ensuring that comedies are the optimal choice for maximizing food sales.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Studies performed in cinemas show that during intervals, people that are watching comedies order more food than people that are watching romantic dramas. Scientists are currently developing an explanation to this phenomenon based on the idea that the dynamics of neurotransmitters in the brain change the body's metabolism rate, and can affect the sensation of hunger. Therefore, in order to maximize the sales of food during intervals, cinemas should show as many comedies as possible.

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

(A) The scientists' theory was proven as being a correct explanation to the phenomenon.

Incorrect.


To solve this Assumption question, first break down the argument. Sentences 1 and 2 are factual, so they are the premises. Sentence 3 uses a conclusion conjunction (Therefore) so we can be sure that it's the conclusion.

Now ask yourself: the author believes that if only comedies were shown, food sales during intervals would reach their highest. But what has the author overlooked? What must the author assume for this argument to stand?

The second premise in this argument is a decoy, because the conclusion is based only on the first premise, the fact that comedy-watchers eat more during intervals than do romantic drama-watchers. Whether the scientists' explanation is correct is irrelevant, so the author doesn't have to assume it's correct.

Focus on the conclusion. What must the author assume to prove interval food sales would be maximized?


(B) Eating more food increases the intake of calories, which can greatly affect the body's physiological behavior.

Incorrect.

This answer choice is completely besides the point. It corresponds with the second premise in this argument, which is a decoy, because the conclusion is based only on the first premise, the fact that comedy-watchers eat more during intervals than do romantic drama-watchers.

Focus on the conclusion. What must the author assume to prove interval food sales would be maximized?

(C) Comedy films not only stimulate the appetite more than romantic dramas, but also more than all other types of films.

The keyword in the conclusion is maximize. Maximize means to make as much/many as possible. The study only compared two types of movies. If watching another genre of movie makes people hungrier than does watching a comedy, then it would be incorrect to conclude that showing comedies maximizes sales.

The author must assume that comedies are the top appetite-stimulating movie genre of all to make the conclusion.


(D) The most significant income source of a cinema is the profit created by the sales of food.

Incorrect.

To solve this Assumption question, first break down the argument. Sentences 1 and 2 are factual, so they are the premises. Sentence 3 uses a conclusion conjunction (Therefore) so we can be sure that it's the conclusion.

Now ask yourself: the author believes that if only comedies were shown, food sales during intervals would reach their highest. But what has the author overlooked? What must the author assume for this argument to stand?

This answer choice fails to explain why the author promotes comedy based on the existing premises; instead it focuses on a topic not discussed in the argument - the place interval food sales take in relation to other sources of income the cinema has.

To eliminate it, try to reverse it. If the author assumed interval food sales were the cinema's smallest income, would the conclusion be different?


No, it wouldn't, because the author is not concerned with maximizing the cinema's income as a whole; he's concerned with maximizing the interval food sales, whatever part they play in the cinema's overall income.

(E) People that order food before the movie are still hungry enough to order again during the interval, not affecting the sales.[/quote]

Incorrect.

Since the conclusion is only about people who buy food during the interval, regardless of whether they had food before or not, this answer choice is irrelevant.