There are around 3,000 hotel rooms in the downtoen area that are

Honestly, all answer choices are not "well framed"

B. Price is the only concern for choosing a suburban hotel over a downtown hotel.
This is too extreme. The argument only needs price to be a significant factor, not the only one
Had the word only not been there, B was perfect.

C. The suburban hotels are comparable to downtown hotels in every aspect other than price.
Comparability isn’t necessary. The argument focuses on price, not whether the hotels are comparable in all aspects.


But anyways, A fits best.. here's why

Most of the overbooked suburban hotels cost lower than the downtown hotels.
If this is true, the argument holds because it explains why budget-conscious travelers are choosing suburban hotels—they are cheaper. The passage implies that travelers are switching from downtown to suburban hotels because of price differences, so most suburban hotels must be cheaper than downtown hotels for the argument to work.

Negating A:
If A is negated, it would mean:

• Most suburban hotels do not cost lower than downtown hotels.
• This would imply that either the suburban hotels cost the same or more than downtown hotels.

In this case, the argument falls apart. If suburban hotels are not cheaper, then the travelers' preference for them (due to budget concerns) wouldn't make sense. Therefore, A is essential for the argument to be valid.
Why the Negation Test Works Here:
Negating A breaks the argument because it removes the foundation—if suburban hotels are not cheaper, budget-conscious travelers wouldn’t logically prefer them.