Skyline393
Can you correct the options
A Most of the overbooked suburban hotels cost lower than. The downtown hotels.
B. Price is the only concern for choosing a suburban hotel over a downtown hotel
C. The suburban. Hotels are comparable to downtown hotels in. every aspect other than price
D. Downtown hotels are preferred by business travelers who do bookings close to their travel
E. Most hotel customers are vacationers

A and B are near competitors
However the last line states
The economic slowdown surely has affected vacation budgets of travelers as seen by their preference of low-budget hotels.
Thus basic assumption is suburban hotels cost less.
A truly says so

hence A
_________________

globaldesi: I have corrected the question, thanks for reminding and sorry for typo mistake.
_________________

I thought B is the answer. If pricing is not the only choice, let's say, suburban hotels provide a better view or more peaceful, then it is not true that the suburban hotels were chosen because of the budget issue.

Please explain.

Regards,
Arup

Thanks. Did not mean to point out but somehow those errors were breaking the flow
_________________

I think A is just repeating what is stated in the last line, preference for a low budget hotel - that means the ones that are booke are low budget.
that is something given in the question, therefore it should not b A

Why not E? The question clearly states vacation budgets right?

We need to find must-be-true information that will tell us that the cost/budget (~economic slowdown affecting vacation budgets) was the factor (not the ONLY factor) that made travelers choose low-budget hotels (LB) over downtown hotels (High Budget or HB)


This option is correct.
Negate it -> "Only a few hotels cost lower than downtown hotels"
If only a few hotels (LB) cost lower than HB, then travelers don't have any incentive to choose LB over HB. Hence, this option (if negated) breaks the conclusion.


A traveler can choose LB over HB based on many factors. This concern need not be TRUE for everyone. Also, it's negation ("Price is not the only concern for choosing a suburban hotel over a downtown hotel") doesn't break the conclusion


Is it necessary for LB to be comparable to HB in every aspect other than price. No. We don't know the traveler's criteria to choose one hotel over another


Irrelevant.


Irrelevant. Applicable to both LB and HB.
_________________

negation of B: price is not the only concern for choosing a suburban hotel over a downtown hotel
the conclusion will not hold true now as the consumers are not choosing the suburban hotels because of the price
also the answer A just restates whats written in the last line of the passage....choice of low budget hotels
most of the suburban hotels do cost lower than the downtown hotels

if price wasnt the only factor we cannot conclude that traveler budgets have decreased based on the evidence that they chose suburban hotels

The conclusion seems to be the last lines:
The economic slowdown surely has affected vacation budgets of travelers as seen by their preference of low-budget hotels.

The italicized portion seems to be a reasoning for bold portion, and Option A is just reiterating the italicized part. Also no where in the passage, it was talked about the relation between economic slow down and the vacation budgets.
What if slow down did not really affect the vacation budgets, would that mean customers would have chosen costlier rooms in downtown area?

I selected option E in this thought process, as it is says "most hotel customers are vacationers", if they are not vacationers, affect on vacation budgets would not make any difference.

In case of option A - "Most of the overbooked suburban hotels cost lower than the downtown hotels", i couldn't understand how low cost of suburban hotels justify conclusion stating economic slow down has affected vacation budgets. This conclusion or premise did not give any information that vacation budgets determine travelers spending on hotel bookings.
Also doesn't word "surely" in above statement clearly say that economic slowdown is has reduced vacation budgets of travelers. Wouldn't it become necessary to assume that customers are vacationers first?

Someone please clarify me on how option A is right assumption that fill gap in conclusion.
Also correct me if my thought process is wrong.

Hello,
I have the same doubt as most of the people who've posted. Option A) just restates what is already mentioned in the passage. Whereas option B) gives us a reason to believe that budget is not the only concern for vacationers and something else like view, or proximity to an event venue etc is the reason for them to prefer the suburbs. Please shed some more light on why A) and not B) is the correct answer.

Hello, Chinmay1998. I understand the confusion, but if you read the passage and answer (A) carefully, you will appreciate that they do not say the same thing. Yes, we glean from the passage that most suburban hotels... are overbooked, in contrast to roughly 3,000 rooms in hotels in the downtown area that are still not booked, and the conclusion does indeed point to a preference among travelers for low-budget hotels. But how are we in a position to qualify whether the downtown vacancies are in low-budget or high-budget hotels? For an extreme example, we could think of all 3,000 rooms or so belonging to some run-down district in the downtown area, undesirable to vacationers because of the location and, perhaps, the relatively higher prices for ease of access to the city. Choice (A), then, becomes a necessary assumption:



Because the stimulus concerns most suburban hotels, we are in a position to find an assumption pertaining to most suburban hotels, and if the conclusion indicates that travelers prefer low-budget hotels, then we have to assume that rooms in most of the overbooked hotels must cost less than their urban counterparts, low-budget or not.

As for choice (B), a preference of low-budget hotels in the conclusion from the passage does not mean the same as an exclusive preference for low-budget hotels: the only concern is overstated. Again, there could be low-budget hotels in the city for all we know. Although I agree that (B) presents a could-be-true situation, within an assumption framework, you have to find the must-be-true instead. Choice (B) fails to deliver to that end.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, I would be happy to address them. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Alright, got it... This was indeed a tricky one! Thank you so much for the quick response.

All choices are incorrect for this question.

Conclusion is economic slowdown surely has affected vacation budgets of travelers as seen by their preference of low-budget hotels

Assumption: People did not choose low budget hotels for some other reason.

A: Negate it. 0-50% of the overbooked suburban hotels cost lesser than downtown ones. 0 percent -> Argument breaks down
50 percent -> Argument strengthened (This choice is a strengthener but not an assumption)

A would have been correct had it read "At least some of the overbooked suburban hotels cost lesser than downtown ones"

B) Price is the only concern for choosing a suburban hotel over a downtown hotel. Negation: Some other factors are also a concern. Does not break down the argument. For example a tertiary factor could be safety of the place. Argument is not that Economic slowdown is the ONLY cause. It "HAS AFFECTED" i.e it has played a role in the preference.

B would have been correct had it read "Price is a concern for choosing a suburban hotel over a downtown hotel"
_________________

A definitely can't be the right answer.
The argument already states that these hotels are low-budget hotels, A simply restates it.

If you push it, it can be a tie between B and E.
B because - What if money was not the reason these hotels were chosen, it could be a million different things, better view, better food, easy to reach etc.
E because - What if these hotels are not booked by vacationers? They could have been booked by local residents or perhaps some weddings with local guests.
So B and E both take care of this, that its the price is the only concern implying budget is affected or E in which case, the guests are not vacationers and we are just commenting about someone's budget who din't even plan on going on vacation.

Hoozan
Corrected Option (C)

Thanks!

The conclusion of the argument is - "The economic slowdown surely has affected vacation budgets of travellers"
So we need to assume something which can help us in strengthening this.

Option E clearly says that most of the customers were vacationers.
If most of the customers weren't vacationers, then, the vacation budget wasn't affected right. What if most of the customers are staying in suburbs coz there workplace was near to those hotels.

GMATNinja Bunuel Please help.

Hey arya251294. I'd say it's not E because even if only some of the hotel bookers were vacationers, it still doesn't change the fact that a higher proportion booked suburban hotels and not downtown hotels. Basically it doesn't need to be true. Hope that helps.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________