Theatergoer: In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie thea

Theatergoer: In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then. Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Megaplex's own sales figures, Megaplex sold five percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

The theatergoer's conclusion is the following:

That claim (the change has hurt popcorn sales) is false

The support for the conclusion is the following:

according to Megaplex's own sales figures, Megaplex sold five percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year

We see that the theatergoer has reasoned that, since Megaplex sold more popcorn, the change to using canola oil has not hurt sales.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer‘s argument?

The correct answer will somehow show that, even though Megaplex sold more popcorn, the conclusion may not be correct.

A. When it switched from using coconut oil to using canola oil, Megaplex made sure that the chain received a great deal of publicity stressing the health benefits of the change.

This choice would explain why switching to canola oil would not have hurt popcorn sales: people would see the switch to canola oil as healthy.

At the same time, we don't need such an explanation. We need information that casts doubt on the theatergoer's conclusion, which is basically that the switch to using canola oil has not hurt sales.

So, one quick way to eliminate this choice is to see that information on why sales would not have been hurt is IN LINE with the theatergoer's conclusion that sales were not hurt. After all, a choice that is in line with the theatergoer's conclusion clearly doesn't cast doubt on it.

Eliminate.

B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.

This choice presents an irrelevant comparison. After all, regardless of whether Megaplex makes more money on sales of food and beverages than on sales of tickets, popcorn sales may or may not have been hurt by the switch to using canola oil.

Eliminate.

C. In a survey to determine pubic response to the change to canola oil, very few of Megapiex's customers said that the change had affected their popcorn-buying habits.

The correct answer must cast doubt on the author's conclusion, which is, basically, that sales of popcorn have NOT been hurt by the switch.

So, this choice is incorrect because, if anything, this choice provides support for, rather than casts doubt on, the author's conclusion. After all, if the change did not affect most of the customers' popcorn-buying habits, then it appears that, as the theatergoer has concluded, the change did not hurt sales.

So, the effect of this choice is the opposite of what we need.

(People do choose this choice even though it does the opposite of what we need, and a reason why is that, since the argument involves competing claims that go in different directions - Megaplex says the change has hurt sales while the author points to evidence indicating that sales have increased and thus have not been hurt - it's easy to lose track of the direction the correct answer must take things. So, a key takeaway from this question is that keeping track of direction is essential for CR success.)

Eliminate.

D. Total sales of all food and beverage items at Megaplex's movie theaters increased by less than five percent last year.

This choice is tricky because it has the vibe of being correct since it seems to say something negative about sales of food, such as popcorn, at Megaplex's theaters.

At the same time, this choice is incorrect because the fact that sales increased only a little doesn't mean that the switch to canola oil hurt sales, and that therefore the author's conclusion is incorrect. After all, an increase, even a small one, is an improvement in sales, and we have no reason to believe that the fact that the increase was small means sales were hurt.

For all we know, it could be that, if Megaplex hadn't switched to using canola oil, sales would not have increased at all.

To avoid choosing this choice, we have to be careful not to decide that a small increase = sales were hurt.

Eliminate.

E. Total attendance at Megaplex's movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

This choice might seem irrelevant since the argument is about popcorn sales whereas this choice is about attendance. However, if we consider this choice carefully, we see that it wrecks the argument.

After all, if attendance increased by 20 percent but sales of popcorn increased by only 5 percent, as the author mentions, then sales per person attending the movies decreased.

Thus, this choice shows that, even though it's true that sales of popcorn increased by 5 percent, the theatergoers conclusion that sales of popcorn were not hurt by the switch may not be correct because sales of popcorn per person decreased after the change.

The correct answer is (E).