Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In case you didn’t notice, we recently held the 1st ever GMAT game show and it was awesome! See who won a full GMAT course, and register to the next one.
TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 27 Oct 2018, 01:25
1
19
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55% (hard)
Question Stats:
64% (01:18) correct 36% (01:28) wrong based on 765 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.
B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.
C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.
D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Dec 2013, 11:53
10
mba1382 wrote:
Nope sorry . I am still not convinced with your Math Logic to be honest. My question is : Option D says only about attendance of the theater and doesn't really say that the increase in the attendance actually means increased purchase of popcorn sales.
Dear mba1382, I got your private message, and I am happy to help.
You seem to be asking about choices (D) & (E), and so I will assume that we can ignore the first three and agree that they are incorrect. Here's the argument with the last two choices only: 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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
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. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
It is an standard assumption in marketing that what remains fixed is the percent of people who like a product or make some kind of purchase, and much of marketing is concerned with increasing the total traffic, increasing the raw number of people encountering the venue, because if the total number increases, the same percent will result in much higher sales. All of web marketing is based on this principle --- increase SEO & visitors to the site, and a larger number of visitors to the site will result in more sales, even though the percent of visitors who purchase remains more or less constant.
Let's think about choice (D). Suppose in January, 2012, they started using the canola oil (yuck!) rather than the good saturated-fat-filled coconut oil. We will think about (D), and let's make it a little more extreme to understand better. Suppose in 2011, the theater had 1,000,000 visitors, and in 2012, they had 2,000,000 visitors. Instead of a 20% increase, we'll just say that it was 100% increase, for simplicity. If the popcorn remained absolutely unchanged 2011 until 2012, then every marketing model on Earth would predict that, in 2012, with twice the people, they would sell twice the popcorn. Very simple. Now, consider the fact that, between 2011 and 2012, in addition to twice the visitors , from 1M to 2M, the theater also made the oil change to the popcorn, as as a result, popcorn increased only 5% from 2011 to 2012. Without changing the oil, popcorn sales would have increased 100%, just as the visitors did (at least according to any marketing model on Earth), and with the oil change, popcorn sales increased only 5% --- not good. If sales of the item grow at any rate less than the rate of traffic increase, that necessarily means that a lower percent of total visitors want the popcorn, and the only change to which this could be attributed is the change in the oil. Thus, choice (D) indicates there's a significant problem with the use of canola oil, which gives good reason for the theater's decision to change back to coconut oil, and therefore obliterates the theater goer's argument that the theater has no good reason for changing back.
Choice (E) is irrelevant, because it is talking about size of popcorn sale, and we don't know anything about how the number of theater goers changed. Continuing the dates I was using above, let's say that in 2010, the theater experienced 10% increase in popcorn sales over the sales in 2009. Now suppose that from 2008 to 2011, the number of visitors at the theater each year remained constant. If the same number of people are coming, and they buy 10% more in popcorn, then that means more people are buying popcorn --- that's good. But then, in January 2012, they change the oil, and the number of visitors wildly increases, but the popcorn sales don't wildly increase --- then, that's not so good. This is just one possible scenario, but depending on how the number of theater visitors changed from year to year is exactly what determines whether the percent change in sales is a good thing or not. What matters the most is how the percent change in total popcorn sales compares the percentage change in total number of customers --- what we most expect is for those to change in lock-step with one another, because that would mean the percent of people buying popcorn would remain constant; if the percent change in total popcorn sales is greater than or less than the percent change in total visitors, that indicates a change in the percent of people who buy popcorn, and that typically doesn't change too much unless there's a good reason. We don't have enough information in (E) to determined whether the information given is relevant or not.
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Sep 2013, 04:10
is it D.. cuz even though the ppl visiting the Megaplex have gone up by 20%, the sales of pocorn have increased only by 5%. therefore on the whole, there are lesser ppl who are buying the popcorns
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Sep 2013, 05:57
guerrero25 wrote:
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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer 's argument ?
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. C.Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
OA to follow soon
Straight E Conclusion: The claim is false. What is the claim? The claim is that usage of Canola oil has hurt sales. If the sales last year were 10% more than those of previous year, then the trend was having a positive slope. But the owner says that the sales rose 5% last year. Theatergoer doesn't knows about the past years sales figures, yet he points the finger at the multiplex owner. How dare he?
Best regards,
P.S: Before posting, do mention the source regardless if the source is not tagged.
_________________
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Sep 2013, 02:51
2
1
Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
TheatreGoers Claim - Sales of popcorn is not affected by the oil being used What we have to do - Weaken the claim by theatrgoer i.e. Despite 5% increase there is something which shows us that sales are infact being affected. Conflict is between D and E.
Let me take E first. According to E in 2013 sales increased by 10% So in 2014 sales increased by 5% more than 10 % Can you see the sales are still higher so in this case we can not weaken the argument of theatre goer In D in 2013 - Let's attendance is 100. People buying popcorn is 60. (please note 60% of total ppl coming to theatre) in 2014 - Attendance is 120 (20% more than previous year). People buying popcorn is 63 (5% percent more than previous here) If the popcorn were cooked in coconut oil sales should be at least 60% which is 72.
Math is not really needed if your logic is quite clear. Just noticing more in the last sentence, you can negate option E and straightway mark D even without knowing why it is right
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Dec 2013, 20:47
Hi guerrero25,
I feel the answer should be E for the below mentioned reasons.
Theatergoer's conclusion: The claim of Megaplex chain of movie theaters that the change of oil in Popcorn has hurt popcorn sales is false.
Evidence given by TheaterGoer: Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
We need to weaken the Theatergoer's conclusion by attacking the evidence i.e. looking for option that provides evidence which most seriously weakens the theatergoer's claim. I was stuck between D & E but finally zeroed on E. Here is my reasoning.
Option E gives the evidence that "The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year". This means that the sales are indeed hurt and lack behind those (5% vs 10%) of the year before.
Option D says only about attendance of the theater and doesn't really say that the increase in the attendance actually means increased purchase of popcorn sales.
Please post OE if you have as I am still not convinced about OA as D. Expert opinions most welcome.
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Dec 2013, 21:57
Conclusion: claim is false, What is the claim? - Switching from coconut oil to canola oil hurt the sales.
To weaken the conclusion we need to prove, claim is true, means change has hurt the sales.
Additional info: Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year. means: in 2011 - 100gm PC in 2012 - 105gm PC.
Now POE:
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. OFS B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. - OFS C.Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. - not concerned about the prefrence of the people. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. 2011: attendance 100....Sales: 100gm - everybody ate 1gm of PC 2012: Attendence 125....Sales: 105gm - everybody ate <1gm of PC
E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year. This choice is out of time, talking about sales increase in 2011 over 2010.
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Dec 2013, 22:29
Nope sorry . I am still not convinced with your Math Logic to be honest. My question is :
Option D says only about attendance of the theater and doesn't really say that the increase in the attendance actually means increased purchase of popcorn sales.
vivmechster wrote:
Conclusion: claim is false, What is the claim? - Switching from coconut oil to canola oil hurt the sales.
To weaken the conclusion we need to prove, claim is true, means change has hurt the sales.
Additional info: Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year. means: in 2011 - 100gm PC in 2012 - 105gm PC.
Now POE:
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. OFS B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. - OFS C.Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. - not concerned about the prefrence of the people. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. 2011: attendance 100....Sales: 100gm - everybody ate 1gm of PC 2012: Attendence 125....Sales: 105gm - everybody ate <1gm of PC
E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year. This choice is out of time, talking about sales increase in 2011 over 2010.
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Dec 2013, 19:24
Thanks Mike for your feedback with so much detailed explanation. As I said more than which of the answers is correct, I wanted to know why the correct answer is correct and wrong answer is wrong.
mikemcgarry wrote:
mba1382 wrote:
Nope sorry . I am still not convinced with your Math Logic to be honest. My question is : Option D says only about attendance of the theater and doesn't really say that the increase in the attendance actually means increased purchase of popcorn sales.
Dear mba1382, I got your private message, and I am happy to help.
You seem to be asking about choices (D) & (E), and so I will assume that we can ignore the first three and agree that they are incorrect. Here's the argument with the last two choices only: 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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
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. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
It is an standard assumption in marketing that what remains fixed is the percent of people who like a product or make some kind of purchase, and much of marketing is concerned with increasing the total traffic, increasing the raw number of people encountering the venue, because if the total number increases, the same percent will result in much higher sales. All of web marketing is based on this principle --- increase SEO & visitors to the site, and a larger number of visitors to the site will result in more sales, even though the percent of visitors who purchase remains more or less constant.
Let's think about choice (D). Suppose in January, 2012, they started using the canola oil (yuck!) rather than the good saturated-fat-filled coconut oil. We will think about (D), and let's make it a little more extreme to understand better. Suppose in 2011, the theater had 1,000,000 visitors, and in 2012, they had 2,000,000 visitors. Instead of a 20% increase, we'll just say that it was 100% increase, for simplicity. If the popcorn remained absolutely unchanged 2011 until 2012, then every marketing model on Earth would predict that, in 2012, with twice the people, they would sell twice the popcorn. Very simple. Now, consider the fact that, between 2011 and 2012, in addition to twice the visitors , from 1M to 2M, the theater also made the oil change to the popcorn, as as a result, popcorn increased only 5% from 2011 to 2012. Without changing the oil, popcorn sales would have increased 100%, just as the visitors did (at least according to any marketing model on Earth), and with the oil change, popcorn sales increased only 5% --- not good. If sales of the item grow at any rate less than the rate of traffic increase, that necessarily means that a lower percent of total visitors want the popcorn, and the only change to which this could be attributed is the change in the oil. Thus, choice (D) indicates there's a significant problem with the use of canola oil, which gives good reason for the theater's decision to change back to coconut oil, and therefore obliterates the theater goer's argument that the theater has no good reason for changing back.
Choice (E) is irrelevant, because it is talking about size of popcorn sale, and we don't know anything about how the number of theater goers changed. Continuing the dates I was using above, let's say that in 2010, the theater experienced 10% increase in popcorn sales over the sales in 2009. Now suppose that from 2008 to 2011, the number of visitors at the theater each year remained constant. If the same number of people are coming, and they buy 10% more in popcorn, then that means more people are buying popcorn --- that's good. But then, in January 2012, they change the oil, and the number of visitors wildly increases, but the popcorn sales don't wildly increase --- then, that's not so good. This is just one possible scenario, but depending on how the number of theater visitors changed from year to year is exactly what determines whether the percent change in sales is a good thing or not. What matters the most is how the percent change in total popcorn sales compares the percentage change in total number of customers --- what we most expect is for those to change in lock-step with one another, because that would mean the percent of people buying popcorn would remain constant; if the percent change in total popcorn sales is greater than or less than the percent change in total visitors, that indicates a change in the percent of people who buy popcorn, and that typically doesn't change too much unless there's a good reason. We don't have enough information in (E) to determined whether the information given is relevant or not.
Dear Konstantin1983 My friend, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to clear up the confusion surrounding this question. Unfortunately, I believe the individual who posted the question at that link (51258) was mistaken about a number of details. I do not believe that this is a GMAT Prep question. The language does not sound sophisticated enough. Furthermore, this is a challenging question, and every challenging GMAT Prep question is discussed extensively in the MGMAT forums, but from what I can tell, the MGMAT forums never touch this questions (the folks at MGMAT are scrupulous about not discussing questions on their forums unless these questions are their own or from official sources). It's clear that (A) is weakens the theater's argument, which strengthens the theater-goer's argument: this is a classic trap answer, but all over the web, there is more discussion that (A) is the answer rather than (D). It is possible that whoever wrote the question wrote question so hard that he didn't understand it himself: believe it or not, that happens sometimes. It is possible the source, whatever it is, thought the OA was (A), which is wrong. It generates terrible confusion when the folks writing the questions don't have a deep understanding, but sometimes the desire to start a test-prep company and make money is considerably stronger than the scholarship & intellectual strength. GMAT students preparing for the test have to be highly discerning about source quality, because not every company that advertises "high quality GMAT practice questions" actually can deliver on that claim. Caveat emptor.
Once again, my friend, thank you for your attempt to inject some clear-sighed rationality into a very muddled debate. Mike _________________
Dear Konstantin1983 My friend, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to clear up the confusion surrounding this question. Unfortunately, I believe the individual who posted the question at that link (51258) was mistaken about a number of details. I do not believe that this is a GMAT Prep question. The language does not sound sophisticated enough. Furthermore, this is a challenging question, and every challenging GMAT Prep question is discussed extensively in the MGMAT forums, but from what I can tell, the MGMAT forums never touch this questions (the folks at MGMAT are scrupulous about not discussing questions on their forums unless these questions are their own or from official sources). It's clear that (A) is weakens the theater's argument, which strengthens the theater-goer's argument: this is a classic trap answer, but all over the web, there is more discussion that (A) is the answer rather than (D). It is possible that whoever wrote the question wrote question so hard that he didn't understand it himself: believe it or not, that happens sometimes. It is possible the source, whatever it is, thought the OA was (A), which is wrong. It generates terrible confusion when the folks writing the questions don't have a deep understanding, but sometimes the desire to start a test-prep company and make money is considerably stronger than the scholarship & intellectual strength. GMAT students preparing for the test have to be highly discerning about source quality, because not every company that advertises "high quality GMAT practice questions" actually can deliver on that claim. Caveat emptor.
Once again, my friend, thank you for your attempt to inject some clear-sighed rationality into a very muddled debate. Mike
Hi Mike! Thanks for your answer. Yes i have to agree with you. Individual didn't pay attention to correct answer. You once said that math questions here are very good but verbal are not. Now i see that you are right. I wonder why individuals who post such questions can't post correct answers
_________________
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Feb 2017, 17:27
Lots of controversy about this question.
This popped up in a GMATPrep question bank, so I can't necessarily ignore it.
Here's my issue with this question: The passage implies that the switch from coconut oil to canola oil led to a decrease in popcorn sales. As in, total popcorn sales. (There could be a TON of alternative reasons that could lead to a decrease in popcorn sales.) The Conclusion is that this must be false b/c the Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn than the previous year.
Here's my issue with E: Just b/c attendance increased (more people bought tickets and attended the Megaplex) does NOT mean they bought popcorn at a proportional rate. What if families bought tickets so that 1 out of every 5 bought popcorn, whereas in the previous year there was a higher rate of popcorn purchases b/c people took their dates to the movies (and 1 out of every 2 bought popcorn)?
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Oct 2017, 22:19
guerrero25 wrote:
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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
The key to answering this question is to know the conclusion.
IMO, the conclusion is "sales popcorn doesn't decline"
Now, our task is to find the fact that can break this conclusion. Any facts that show or give the signs that sales popcorn DOES decline is the answer.
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. The sales of popcorn swim the tide. Incorrect.
B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. Irrelevant.
C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. Preference might not relate directly to the sales.
D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. Aha! If the increase of the attendance is 20%, why sales of popcorn just rise 5%? Maybe there is something wrong!
E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year. This show that in the last two years, sales always rise, no decline. Incorrect. _________________
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Oct 2017, 03:33
guerrero25 wrote:
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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
Hi Experts,
Why cant we have A as the answer?? The theatreGoer insists that Megaplex shouldnt switch back bcoz Megaples sold 5% more popcorn than last year. Option A says that the overall sales of refreshment was less than 5% which obviously means that Megaplex didnt sell more than 5% last year..
Please correct me if I am wrong??
_________________
If my Post helps you in Gaining Knowledge, Help me with KUDOS.. !!
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Oct 2017, 04:29
rahul16singh28 wrote:
guerrero25 wrote:
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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
Hi Experts,
Why cant we have A as the answer?? The theatreGoer insists that Megaplex shouldnt switch back bcoz Megaples sold 5% more popcorn than last year. Option A says that the overall sales of refreshment was less than 5% which obviously means that Megaplex didnt sell more than 5% last year..
Please correct me if I am wrong??
Hi.. I'm not an expert, but will try to explain based on my understanding.
Firstly, we must analyze the option based on the conclusion : "sales popcorn doesn't decline". Moreover, the question ask about WEAKEN, means we must find any evidence that says that "sales popcorn DOES decline."
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. When we analyze this option, we know that even though sales of ALL refreshment increased less by 5 percent, sales of POPCORN increased 5%. What does this mean? Though sales in total were struggling, popcorn still sold more than any other refreshment in the Megaplex.
So, based on option A, we STILL cannot find the evidence that say "sales popcorn DOES decline."
Re: TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Oct 2017, 07:41
septwibowo wrote:
rahul16singh28 wrote:
guerrero25 wrote:
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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets. C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil. D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
Hi Experts,
Why cant we have A as the answer?? The theatreGoer insists that Megaplex shouldnt switch back bcoz Megaples sold 5% more popcorn than last year. Option A says that the overall sales of refreshment was less than 5% which obviously means that Megaplex didnt sell more than 5% last year..
Please correct me if I am wrong??
Hi.. I'm not an expert, but will try to explain based on my understanding.
Firstly, we must analyze the option based on the conclusion : "sales popcorn doesn't decline". Moreover, the question ask about WEAKEN, means we must find any evidence that says that "sales popcorn DOES decline."
A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. When we analyze this option, we know that even though sales of ALL refreshment increased less by 5 percent, sales of POPCORN increased 5%. What does this mean? Though sales in total were struggling, popcorn still sold more than any other refreshment in the Megaplex.
So, based on option A, we STILL cannot find the evidence that say "sales popcorn DOES decline."
Hope this helps.
Thanks Brother for the detailed explanation..
_________________
If my Post helps you in Gaining Knowledge, Help me with KUDOS.. !!
close
64% (01:18) correct 
