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

Hi RonPurewal, MartyMurray, GMATNinja, DmitryFarber, VeritasKarishma



From my realization on this CR, it seems that the green part is not Theatergoer's side; it's the author's side. If I'm not wrong, then could you put some insights here?


If the link makes you problem to find out my query, you can safely take help from attachment.

On the above link, one of my honorable experts ( IanStewart ) said that the green part is NOT from author (who wrote this CR) side! If this message is from general people like me, then I'll not be so serious about that message. But, when a message (from an extraordinary expert) says something, which goes against my beliefs/realization/knowing/judgement, then it makes me so curious to know the real thing! From my thinking, the poster (richachampion, a member of beat the gmat) is 100% correct! Am I right? So, I'm eagerly waiting for your extraordinary response that you put in this club all the times!
Thanks__

Mr. Stewart is definitely correct. If a paragraph is attributed to someone, then the whole thing will consist of their words. There is no separate "author." The passage can describe the reasoning of other people, and in fact the theatergoer spends most of their argument describing the reasoning of the theater chain. But when we get to the conclusion, it is the theatergoer's opinion.

So while every word of the argument is from the theatergoer, the structure of the argument first presents us with Megaplex's reasoning, and then the theatergoer's assertion that the reasoning is false, and then a premise supporting that assertion. Our job is then to help knock this assertion down, and thereby indirectly support Megaplex's decision.

E clearly add not to every sentence and check which option effect the most

Posted from my mobile device

Careful, ankit9291. The technique you're describing--the Negation Test--is for assumption questions, not strengthen/weaken. The idea of the Negation Test is to see if the argument FAILS when the statement is negated. That's not what we want here, and that approach can cause you to miss some strengthen/weaken questions. It's better to test the statements as they are.

AsadAbu, here are my two cents:

Argument 1:

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 oi 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 green part is a part of direct speech of Theatergoer.

Argument 2:

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 oi 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 green part is the author's conclusion + premise.
Author's conclusion: That claim is false,
Author's premise: According to Megaplex's own sales figures, Megaplex sold five percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

Argument 3:

In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oi 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 green part is the author's conclusion + premise.
Author's conclusion: That claim is false,
Author's premise: According to Megaplex's own sales figures, Megaplex sold five percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

Hi VeritasKarishma,
It seems that your argument 1 and argument 3 contradict each other! Could you say that what's going on in this CR, exactly?
Thanks__

Arguments 1 and 3 are different. Note the single word that makes this difference - "Theatregoer" at the beginning.
Argument 1 is completely attributed to the Theatregoer. Everything is said by the Theatregoer in that.
Argument 3 is written by the author. It is not attributed to anyone else.

Hi VeritasKarishma,
Thanks for your kind response.
I'm lost in understanding argument 1 and 2. There is no huge differences between argument 1 and argument 2-In argument 2, just the writing has been separated by 2 paragraphs. So, how do someone convinced that this 2nd paragraph is written by "author" in argument 2?
Thanks__

Normally, no part of the argument is attributed to anyone else. It is just what the author writes. But sometimes, some statements are attributed to others. Until and unless, a statement has specifically someone's name ahead of it, it belongs to the author.

For example, Argument:

Theatregoer: .....
..........................
(Everything said in this paragraph belongs to the Theatregoer)

Movie Critic: .....
.........................
(Everything said in this paragraph belongs to the Movie Critic)

But neither one of them has considered the possibility that ... (not attributed to anyone. This is written by the author)

When you change the paragraph, you show that a new thought is being presented.

I'm not able to understand why C is wrong and why E is right. Please explain me this question along with the options in detail. Thanks.

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).

Understanding the argument -
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. - Fact
Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales.- Fact
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. - Conclusion + supporting premise.

Option Elimination - Weakener
The scope of the argument is to weaken the conclusion, which is "That claim (sales is low) is false." What if the ticket sales increased 100% while the popcorn sales just increased by 5%, as Thetregoer cited? This is what option E highlights.

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. - The scope of our argument is to weaken the conclusion, which is "That claim (sales is low) is false." Put both facts side by side - the change got great publicity and a 5% increase in sales = which weakens the Multiplex's claim that sales were reduced. Opposite of what we need.

B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. - This comparison is out of scope.

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. - At best, it's a strengthener. If there is no change in customers' buying habits, then that further strengthens the Theatergoer's conclusion that "That claim (sales is low) is false." There is no change in their buying habits + There is a 5% increase, which is a perfect weaker for Multiplex's claim that the sales have reduced.

D. Total sales of all food and beverage items at Megaplex's movie theaters increased by less than five percent last year. - Total sales of all food and beverage items increased by less than 5%, and even after that, popcorn increased by 5%, which certainly strengthens Theatergoer's conclusion. Opposite of what we need.

E. Total attendance at Megaplex's movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. - ok. So, while the Multiplex may expect more than a 20% increase in sales, it just rose 5%. So Multipex's claim is correct and not false, as Theatergoer pointed out.