The Ministry of Tourism in country X began an expensive television

Question

The Ministry of Tourism in country X began an expensive television advertising campaign in country Y two years ago. Since that time, the number of visitors to country X from country Y has increased by more than 8 percent. Clearly, the Ministry of Tourism’s campaign is responsible for the increase.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

A. The advertisements sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism in country X were panned by the country Y media for lack of imagination.

B. A devaluation of the currency in country X two years ago made travel there more affordable for residents of country Y.

C. Increasing political turmoil in country X will lead to a decrease in visitors from country Y next year.

D. The number of visitors from country Y to country Z increased by more than 8 percent over the past two years.

E. Over the past two years, the advertisement campaign launched by the Ministry of Tourism in country X cost more money than residents of country Y spent traveling in country X.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

PeanutButter429 · Answer

For me (B), since when compared (D) it gives a more direct relationship.

MansikaVats · Answer

I also think that the answer would be option B as the question asks us to give a weakener that can weaken he claim of country X that their tourism campaign is responsible for the increase in tourism .Here with option B we are giving an alternative cause why the tourism might have increased recently. It could be because of the affordability for the tourists .

Please don't mind if I made any mistake in writing .
I am in grade 11 in India and working on my English .

Please don't mind if I made any mistake in writing . 
I am in grade 11 in India and working on my English .

Dereno · Answer

Ministry of Tourism of Country X (MoToX) began an expensive advertising campaign in country X two years ago. So, for the past two years advertisement of MoToX have been in place targeting people of country Y.

The outcome - (since that time) , the number visitors from country Y to country X has increased by more than 8%.

The claim of MoToX is : Advertisement have lead to increased number of visitors to country X from country Y.

We need to weaken: So find a cause other than advertisement, that’s has lead to the increase in visitor numbers.

We cannot deny the fact that the visitors from country Y has increased by 8%.

Let’s look into the options in sequence.

A. The advertisements sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism in country X were panned by the country Y media for lack of imagination.

If the advertisements of MoToX were severely criticised by country Y, then the number of visitors might have declined. This is in contradiction to the fact mentioned in the question. Hence, wrong.

B. A devaluation of the currency in country X two years ago made travel there more affordable for residents of country Y.
 
The devaluation of currency X - means the price of goods in country X is much cheaper and more affordable than it was before. This devaluation could have boosted sales and increased visitor numbers from country X to country Y, independent of MoTox advertisements , thus weakening. Hence, correct.

C. Increasing political turmoil in country X will lead to a decrease in visitors from country Y next year.

This is in contradiction to the stated fact of increase in visitor numbers. Hence, wrong. The option speaks about the political turmoil which is going to happen the upcoming year. While, the question statement speaks about present and past scenarios.

D. The number of visitors from country Y to country Z increased by more than 8 percent over the past two years.

This is irrelevant as it speaks about the visitor increase from Country Y to Z. But, the question in place is between countries Y and X. Hence, Wrong.

E. Over the past two years, the advertisement campaign launched by the Ministry of Tourism in country X cost more money than residents of country Y spent traveling in country X.

We are not comparing the amount spent on advertisement vs the amount spent by tourists travelling from country Y to X. This is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Hence, wrong.

Option B

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation:

B

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The question stem clearly indicates that this is a Weaken question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

The conclusion is that the Ministry of Tourism’s ad campaign is responsible for the increase in the number of visitors from country Y to country X. The evidence is that since the ad campaign began running, the number of visitors from country Y to country X has gone up by more than 8 percent.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

This is a very straightforward causal argument. While there are three classic alternatives to a causal argument (reverse cause and effect, find an alternative cause, or suggest coincidence), the most common way of weakening a causal argument is to exploit the second alternative—citing another possible cause for the phenomenon. So let’s look for an answer choice that offers another explanation for the increase of tourism from country Y.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

And (B) offers that alternative explanation. If travel to country X became more affordable at the same time that tourism to country X increased, it is possible that the devaluation in currency is responsible for this increase rather than the Ministry of Tourism’s ad campaign. While it does not disprove that the ad campaign was the cause of the increase, it certainly weakens the author’s argument by presenting another potential cause of the increase. (A) does not effectively weaken the argument. Just because the media panned the ads does not mean they could not have spurred the increase in tourism. The prediction in (C) is irrelevant to the author’s argument about the past efficacy of the Ministry of Tourism’s ad campaign. (D) ventures outside the scope by bringing up tourism in country Z. And (E) is irrelevant: the author is only concerned with establishing a causal relationship between the ad campaign and increased tourism, not with whether the campaign was cost-effective.  Choice (B) is the correct answer.

The Ministry of Tourism in country X began an expensive television

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 Ministry of Tourism in country X began an expensive television

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