sv2023 wrote:
GMATNinja KarishmaB I read through the entire thread, but I am still not able to convince myself that E is not the answer and D is. Pls help, I am stuck between D and E.
Let's start by breaking down the argument.
- Conclusion: The claim that switching oils in January of last year hurt popcorn sales is false.
- Evidence: Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
So basically, the argument is saying that Megaplex's popcorn sales were NOT hurt. Why? Because they actually sold
more popcorn after switching oils last January.
Let's take a look at answer choice (D):
Quote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?
D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
The argument concludes that popcorn sales were NOT hurt last year, because popcorn sales went up by 5% last year over the previous year. Answer choice (D) says that attendance was 20% higher last year than the previous year. Would that weaken the argument?
It would. If theater attendance went up by more than 20%, and the percentage of people who bought popcorn held steady, you'd expect popcorn sales to go up by more than 20% as well. But popcorn sales only went up by 5%. So that means a smaller percentage of people were buying popcorn. That suggests popcorn sales
were hurt, which weakens the argument. Hold on to (D).
Let's examine (E):
Quote:
E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
The conclusion is about last year's popcorn sales versus the previous year's popcorn sales. But (E) doesn't compare last year to the previous year. In fact, (E) compares the year
before last to the year before
that. For that reason, it's irrelevant to the conclusion.
Overall, since (E) doesn't address a change between last year and the previous year, it doesn't relate to the argument. Eliminate (E).
That leaves us with (D), the correct answer.
I hope that helps!