🧩 The Argument
Premises:- 3,000 downtown hotel rooms are still unbooked.
- Most suburban hotels are overbooked.
- There is an economic slowdown.
Conclusion:Quote:
Travelers’
vacation budgets have been affected,
as seen by their preference for low-budget hotels (i.e., suburban ones).
[hr]
🧠 What the argument assumes
The conclusion links
travelers’ preference for suburban hotels to
price (budget).
So the assumption must connect:
Quote:
“Suburban hotels” ⇢ “lower-priced than downtown hotels.”
Without that, the argument collapses.
If suburban hotels weren’t cheaper, the overbooking couldn’t be explained by
budget concerns.
[hr]
✅ Option A: “Most of the overbooked suburban hotels cost lower than the downtown hotels”
That’s exactly the missing link.
It ties the evidence (overbooking in suburbs) to the conclusion (people choosing low-budget hotels due to reduced budgets).
Hence,
A is necessary for the argument to make sense.
[hr]
❌ Option E: “Most hotel customers are vacationers”
You’re right — the stimulus
mentions “vacation budgets,” which makes this tempting.
But notice:
- The author is already talking specifically about vacation budgets of travelers, i.e., focusing only on those who are vacationing.
- Even if some downtown bookings are by business travelers, that doesn’t affect the conclusion about vacationers’ behavior — which is the focus of the argument.
The argument doesn’t need
most hotel customers to be vacationers; it only needs the
vacationers’ choices to reflect the economic slowdown.
Even if only 30% of hotel customers are vacationers, the conclusion (“vacation budgets affected”) could still hold.
So
E strengthens the argument somewhat but is
not required — the argument can stand even if it’s false.
kausikS
Why not E? The question clearly states vacation budgets right?