The Farmsley Film and Performing Arts Center was built three years ago

Question

The Farmsley Film and Performing Arts Center was built three years ago in downtown Metropolis. A recent study shows that, on average, a person who attends a show at the Farmsley Center spends $96 at other downtown businesses on the day of the show.

Each of the following, if true, would cast serious doubt on the claim that the Farmsley Center is a significant driver of the economic success of downtown Metropolis EXCEPT:

(A) People who do not attend a Farmsley Center show spend $103 on average when shopping in the downtown area.

(B) Restaurants near the Farmsley Center tend to be more expensive than restaurants in other areas of the downtown.

(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.

(D) Tax revenues from all products and services sold in the downtown area have changed little in five years.

(E) Another downtown theatre is the only one large enough to show popular, newly released Hollywood films.

The answer provided is B.

It looks to be that E is a better option than B. Reason: E talks about a theatre which has no context to the Farmseley Arts center (totally unrelated) whereas option B talks about expensive restaurants (due to which there might be more spending). Please explain how the answer provided by them is right.

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Hello,  Revankumar . First off, whatever your GMAT™ goals may be, I would suggest working on lower-level questions to get the fundamentals in place before tackling more nuanced questions such as this one. Since you ask about (B) and (E) in particular, I will restrict my response to those two answer choices. How about we start with (E) first?

Remember, our goal is to weaken the notion that  the Farmsley Center is a significant driver of the economic success of downtown Metropolis . If this  other  theatre that is also located in downtown Metropolis is  the only one  that can show  popular, newly released Hollywood films , then, presumably, a lot of people visit downtown Metropolis and spend money at this other theatre, thereby contributing to the economic success of the city. The word  popular  is crucial—we are forced to acknowledge that this other theatre plays a  significant  role in the economic success equation. This is not to say that the Farmsley Center could not play its own part, but we do have reason to doubt the claim above in  bold .

First off,  more expensive  is vague. That could mean $1 or 2 cents more, on average, than similar downtown restaurants elsewhere. Moreover, the evidence cited to support the claim made in the first sentence of the passage is that  a person who attends a show at the Farmsley Center spends $96 at other downtown businesses . This fact cannot be disputed. People are spending this amount of money, on average, either  before  or  after  taking in a show at the Farmsley Center, but they are spending that extra money  on the day of the show . Now, it  could  be true that the restaurants in the area of town in which the Center is located are  more expensive  independent of their proximity to the Center, but  people still have to fill those seats . Are we given any information, as we were in (E), about popular restaurants with  a significant number  of longstanding clients from more than  three years  prior (predating the existence of the Center)? No. Thus, we have  less  of a reason to doubt the claim than we had before, with (E). That is, we simply do not have enough evidence to make as compelling a case against this answer choice.

More difficult CR questions and answer choices often fall into shades of grey, rather than being black or white. Your goal is not to chase the best answer, but to get behind the one that is hardest to argue against. Between (E) and (B), we have more reason to doubt the claim when we consider the case presented in (E), the exact language used to describe the situation, so (B) is a better answer to the question being asked.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Harshjha001 · Answer

IMO C

C says that people don't spend in downtown because they visited Farmsley center , rather they were already spending their money in the downtown and they visited Farmsley center because they were in the area. X is not causing Y , Y is causing X.

B says that restaurants are expensive and hence the total bill has gone up . But what if people dont visit these restaurants and just shop and leave . Just because the restaurants are expensive doesn't mean people are necessarily visiting it .

Not satisfied with the OA .

Can anyone explain me this ?

ramlala · Answer

The answer provided is B.

It looks to be that E is a better option than B. Reason: E talks about a theatre which has no context to the Farmseley Arts center (totally unrelated) whereas option B talks about expensive restaurants (due to which there might be more spending). Please explain how the answer provided by them is right.

B is the good choice than E.

sanya2711 · Answer

I felt the same thing. can someone pls explain

Vishalcv · Answer

Hi,

I am no expert, but this is my take.

C suggests that people attended the center only because they were in the area. That still means there is something that the center has and other attractions(if any) don't have. In the absence of the center, the people might have just left instead of shelling out around 96$. So in a way, it is playing a significant economic role

AndrewN · Answer

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):

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

jaspreetnagi15 · Answer

The question stem says that all choices weaken the argument except one.
You're right that X doesn't cause Y but Y causes X hence it weakens the argument and is not the answer.
Regarding the correct answer, not an airtight answer for me but it doesn't weaken the argument

Posted from my mobile device

djangobackend · Answer

I chose E - I thought if only one of the other theatre exists then possibly Farmsley is contributing as well and probably a lot but this again may or may not be true ON THE OTHER HAND it actually weaken??? if we learn about this other BIG theatre in downtown then probably that is leading to economic success and not farmsley, THOUGH I am confused that this other theatre is showing only "hollywood" while farmsley also shows art shows so how does it affect?

while B - "more expensive" could be a small amount as well and also we know about 96 dollar spent as a fact now whether people ate at "more expensive" place or not is not relevant since that fact doesn't change, maybe people still eat at such places.

while B - "more expensive" could be a small amount as well and also we know about 96 dollar spent as a fact now whether people ate at "more expensive" place or not is not relevant since that fact doesn't change, maybe people still eat at such places.

pk14y · Answer

I answered B and was able to rule out the other options (except d) properly because B needed a massive assumption for it to be a weakener. I just didn't understand how D weakens the argument, let alone effect it in any way. Is it implying that nobody is purchasing the products at the downtown store, hence why tax revenue is slightly increasing? I don't see how that logically explains why the theater is not a factor for the theater.

Edit: I now realize I wasn't reading the answer choice and argument: I skipped over the facts " past 5 years"  while the theater was built " 3 years ago" . That could be a solid weakener in that there is a lesser quantity of products being bought even though the theater was recently constructed. Although there could be bigger counters that could make this statement false (i.e. another factor that reduces traffic and the theater is covering it up), that would require massive assumptions not stated in the argument.

So for anybody wondering how D was ruled out, there you go.

Ghoskrp3 · Answer

The challenge is not in the argument, but the question:  Each of the following,    if true, would cast serious doubt    on the claim that the Farmsley Center is a    significant driver of the economic success    of downtown Metropolis    EXCEPT: (2 keywords, "cast doubt" & "EXCEPT")

It means 4 Statements will    Reject   , Farmsley Center as a    significant driver of the economic success and only one would support it.

And Very cleverly, option B " Negatively"  proves the Downtown's Su  ccess through the presence of the Farmsley Center.

Ghoskrp3 · Answer

The challenge is not in the argument, but the question:   Each of the following,    if true, would cast serious doubt    on the claim that the Farmsley Center is a    significant driver of the economic success    of downtown Metropolis    EXCEPT: (2 keywords, "cast doubt" & "EXCEPT")

It means 4 Statements will    Reject   , Farmsley Center as a  significant driver of the economic success and only one would support it.

And Very cleverly, option B " Negatively"  proves the Downtown's Su  ccess through the presence of the Farmsley Center.

Detailed Evaluation of all the statements below: (Remember we have to strengthen "F armsley Center is a significant driver of the economic success of downtown ")

(A) People who do not attend a Farmsley Center show spend $103 on average when shopping in the downtown area.-   Downtown is making money fine but conveys that Downtown's success is not because of the Farmsely Center, so it won't help-  Hence, No

(B) Restaurants near the Farmsley Center tend to be more expensive than restaurants in other areas of the downtown.-   Restaurants are expensive fine, but not necessarily will mean that all those who go to Farmsley will go to Downtown only because of it, but we also are given that ever since this center came all those who attend the show at this center also on an average spend $96 in Downtown and so this option can be a possibility and not to be ruled out. -  Hence, Okay

(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. -   Exactly opposite of what we set out to prove, A => B but B not => A-  Hence, No

(D) Tax revenues from all products and services sold in the downtown area have changed little in five years. -   It says nothing much changed and may look like neither the Farmsley nor the Downtown profited so, we can't prove anything from it-  Hence, No

(E) Another downtown theatre is the only one large enough to show popular, newly released Hollywood films. -   If it supports what we set out to prove, then it would only mean that first the people would come to Farmsley then not like the show at all and then to feel better they go to the Downtown and watch another show there to cover up their initial disappointment with Farmsley. So in this way Farmsley is contributing to Downtown's success ... Isn't it too long a way to prove that Farmsley is contributing to Downtown's success and also how many will watch another show after the first one? Expensive restaurant can still sway more people much easily than a bad Show experience is what I think-  Hence, No

The Farmsley Film and Performing Arts Center was built three years ago

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The Farmsley Film and Performing Arts Center was built three years ago

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards