Hotel bookings in Miami are only done through travel

Question

Hotel bookings in Miami are only done through travel websites. In 2011, there were 50,000 fewer hotel room night bookings then there were in 2010. Hotel owners are blaming the apartment renting service by new website Miami$50 that not only sells hotel room bookings at bargain prices but also allows people to rent out their houses. The website owners dispute the charge stating that they only rented out only 8,000 apartments through their website. They claim that the down economy and not their website is responsible for majority of the decline in hotel room bookings.

Which of the following if true most seriously weakens the Miami$50 owners claim?

A. Miami$50 rents apartments at a much lower price then it rents hotel rooms.
B. Miami$50 rented out at least 8 times as many hotel room nights bookings as apartments.
C. Most apartments in that Miami$50 rented out were rented out multiple times.
D. Miami$50's profit from renting out apartments was higher than it was for renting out hotel rooms.
E. Most of Miami$50's customers preferred renting an apartment to renting a hotel room

I could not figure out the official ans well. So Please explain ur logic for rejecting other choice and also explain answer choice weekened it ....
Thanks in advance

Jp27 · Accepted Answer

hey - this question is based scope shift between the 2 arguments made by the web-site manager and hotel owner. 
Hotel owner is talking about  number of hotel room bookings , while the website manager claims about  number of apartments rented out.  
facts given by hotel M are 
2010 - 150000 bookings 
2011 - 100000 bookings 
so 50,000 fewer bookings but web-site managers says only 8000 apartments were rented, hence its not his website but someother factors that accounts for the fewer bookings.
To weaken this argument we have to say that 8000 apartments rented accounts for 50000 fewer bookings.
That's exactly what C does, Most apartments in that Miami@50 rented out were rented out multiple times. 
Let say each apartment were rented out 6 times so approx 50,0000 apartments are rented out, which could account for the fewer bookings hence the argument is weakened.

Rational for killing the other options are mentioned in boldface.

A. Miami@50 rents apartments at a much lower price then it rents hotel rooms. 
 Price is out of scope, we are talking about numbers of bookings.

B. Miami@50 rented out at least 8 times as many hotel room nights bookings as 
apartments. 
 This strengthens the argument by saying that some other factors accounts for the fewer booking as web-site made more room bookings

C. Most apartments in that Miami@50 rented out were rented out multiple times. 
 PERFECT

D. Miami@50’s profit from renting out apartments was higher than it was for renting
out hotel rooms. 
 Profits are out of scope, we are talking about numbers of bookings.

E. Most of Miami@50’s customers preferred renting an apartment to renting a hotel
room
 This is close but not good enough weakener as even some customers could account for 50,000 room bookings. this is neutral statement.

Kudos if my posts helped.

Cheers

egmat · Answer

Hi Manish,

Have you noticed that the passage clearly mentions hotel room night bookings, which means it’s counting all the nights the hotel rooms were booked? So, even if hotel rooms were booked multiple times, the passage is already taking that into account. However, in case of apartments, it’s only counting the no. of apartments booked and not apartment room nights.

That’s why, when option C provides information that these apartments were booked multiple times, we know that the actual apartment nights could be much higher than 8000. Such a high no. of apartment night bookings can act as a possible reason behind 50,000 fewer hotel room night bookings. This decreases our belief in the owner’s conclusion that Miami@50 wasn’t responsible for the decline in hotel room night bookings. This makes C a weakener.

Now let’s look at option A.

This option isn’t correct because it provides a possible reason  why  customers would’ve chosen apartments over hotel rooms. But we are not even interested in knowing ‘why.’ So any reason provided here is irrelevant. We just want to know  whether  customers chose apartments over hotel rooms and A doesn’t provide that information. That’s why A is not a weakener here.

Hope that clears your doubt.

Regards,
Prashant

manishgmat1 · Answer

can anyone tell me were`nt hotel rooms rented multiple times too ( considering option c) also if prices less people will prefer that option , a seems better ?? or where i am going wrong

sleepynut · Answer

Hi expert,
How to rule out option B? Using a simple math,we can deduce that Miami@50 accounts for 64,000 hotel room night bookings.This figure could fill in the missing 50,000 bookings as mentioned by the hotel owner.

Is it because that the decrease in number of bookings cited by the hotel owners includes the number of bookings from Miami@50 as well?

Thanks.

sayantanc2k · Answer

First, the passage does NOT mention that 8000 is the number of  apartment room night booking . It just states that 8000 apartments were rented out. Thus it is incorrect to conclude that 64000 hotel room nights were booked.

Second, since the number of hotel room night bookings is not indicated for the year 2010, option B cannot strengthen or weaken even if the number 64000 for hotel night booking were assumed to be correct.

Hence option B is incorrect.

abhimahna · Answer

In 2010 : Hotel bookings in Miami = x

In 2011 : Hotel bookings in Miami = x - 50k

Reason for this decrease by Miami: 1) hotel room bookings at bargain prices by Miami@50 2) People renting out their houses.

Miami@50 said : They only rented out only 8,000 apartments through their website. So, The cause should be economy and not their website.

We need to weaken their claim. Meaning we need to say they are actually responsible for the decrease.

A. Miami@50 rents apartments at a much lower price then it rents hotel rooms.  : So what?How does it tell us what Miami@50 said was right? . Incorrect 
B. Miami@50 rented out at least 8 times as many hotel room nights bookings as apartments.  : hotel room nights booking is irrelevant here. We are no where asked whether a particular night booking was there or a day booking was there. So, although a trap option, it is incorrect. 
C. Most apartments in that Miami@50 rented out were rented out multiple times.  : Correct. So, if there were 8000 apartments. They could be rented out 6-7 times.  
D. Miami@50’s profit from renting out apartments was higher than it was for renting out hotel rooms.   : Profit is irrelevant here. 
E. Most of Miami@50’s customers preferred renting an apartment to renting a hotel room  Customer preference is invalid. We need to find out why there was a decrease in number of bookings.

Nums99 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma  
Can you help with why A cannot be the answer? 
C states that most apartments were rented out multiple times but we do not know how many times exactly is this "multiple times" it could be 2 times ( 16000 < 50000 maybe not responsible ) or 10 times ( 80000 > 50000 here it might be responsible ). We do not have a definite answer here right?

KarishmaB · Answer

Nums99 :

In 2011, there were 50,000 fewer hotel room night bookings than in 2010.
Miami@50 books hotel rooms at bargain prices and rents apartments. Hotel owners are blaming them for fewer hotel room night bookings.
Miami@50 claims that they rented out only 8000 apartments (say, they have 8000 apartments in their data base)
So Miami@50 claims that 'economy is down' is the reason for fewer hotel room night bookings.

What will weaken the claim of Miami@50 (that economy is down is the reason for 50,000 fewer bookings)?

It is all about the numbers. Hotel owners claim 50,000 fewer nights booked. Miami@50 claims that they rented out only 8000 apartments (so that cannot make up for 50,000 fewer bookings). We need to find why 8000 apartments MAY make up for at least a big chunk of 50,000 fewer night bookings.

A. Miami@50 rents apartments at a much lower price then it rents hotel rooms.

Irrelevant. The cost is irrelevant. Even if the apartments were rented at much lower cost, only 8000 apartments were rented. It doesn't explain the 50,000 fewer nights.
 
B. Miami@50 rented out at least 8 times as many hotel room nights bookings as apartments.

Doesn't matter how many hotel room nights it booked. In total, hotel room nights booked were 50k fewer this year.

C. Most apartments in that Miami@50 rented out were rented out multiple times.

Correct. We are talking about hotel room nights i.e. the number of total nights booked in hotels. 8000 apartments just tells us how many apartments were rented. It doesn't tell us for how many nights they were rented. If each apartment was rented multiple times, they would account for many more nights than just 8000. Hence it weakens the claim of Miami@50. Apartment renting could be the reason for 50,000 fewer hotel night renting. We don't need to show that apartments were rented for 50,000 nights. If we can show that they were rented for a number much greater than 8000, that is enough to weaken Miami@50's claim.

D. Miami@50’s profit from renting out apartments was higher than it was for renting out hotel rooms.

Profits are irrelevant.

E. Most of Miami@50’s customers preferred renting an apartment to renting a hotel room.

Again irrelevant. We still know that only 8000 apartments were rented.

Answer (C)

pk6969 · Answer

PLease can anyone elaborate on why b can't be the answer?

GMATNinja · Answer

Let’s first consider the dispute laid out in the passage:

There were 50,000 fewer hotel room night bookings in 2011 than in 2010. 
 Hotel owners blame Miami@50 for allowing people to rent out houses instead of just hotel rooms. 
 Miami@50 owners claim  the down economy, NOT their website, is responsible for the majority of the decline in hotel room bookings . 
 To support this, they say that they only rented out 8,000 apartments through their website.

So the dispute comes down to what is responsible for the MAJORITY of the decrease in 50,000 hotel rooms booked in 2011. According to hotel owners, Miami@50 is responsible because it rented out houses in addition to hotels. According to Miami@50, the down economy is responsible because they only rented out 8,000 apartments, and this would not account for the majority (25,000+) of the decline in hotel room bookings.

With that in mind, the question asks for an answer choice that weakens the Miami@50 owners’ claim. In other words, which answer choice gives us reason to believe that Miami@50, and not the down economy, may be responsible for the decrease in hotel bookings?

(B) seems to indicate that Miami@50 rented out  at least  64,000 hotel room night bookings. But we still don’t know  exactly  how many room night bookings Miami@50 rented out, and even if we did, it wouldn’t help. The problem is that we’re trying to explain the decrease in hotel bookings. Merely stating how many hotel bookings Miami@50 had this year does not explain WHY the number of bookings decreased. This is because Miami@50’s hotel bookings are presumably counted in the total number of hotel bookings.

So (B) gives us no reason to think that Miami@50 is responsible for the decrease in hotel bookings, and we can eliminate it.

And here’s (C):

Miami@50’s entire argument is predicated on the fact that they only rented out 8,000 apartments, and the 8,000 figure is not enough to account for a  majority (25,000+)  of the 50,000 booking decrease. But (C) tells us that most of those 8,000 apartments were rented multiple times. If that’s the case, then it’s possible that those 8,000 apartments do account for more than 25,000 of the 50,000 fewer bookings. For example, if each apartment was rented out an average of four times, then the 8,000 apartments would account for 32,000 bookings.

So (C) gives us reason to think that the Miami@50 owners’ claim is based on misleading and incomplete evidence. For that reason, it weakens their argument, and (C) is the best choice.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - in option B - sholuld the ratio in option B (8 :1) be considered the case for 
- 2010 only
- 2011 only 
- BOTH 2010 and 2011 ?

I think the ratio is the case for BOTH years 2010 and 2011.

Hence, even if the ratio is (8 : 1) in 2011 --> we don't know if the ratio specifically is responsible for the 50,000 fewer night bookings ?

Because I do understand the shift in scope regarding the number of apartments vs number of apartment night bookings (made through the 8000 apartments). But taking it one step furhter in terms of LOGIC : IF there are 8000 apartments booked in 2011 -- There must be  atleast  8000 apartment night bookings or more.

(No one is booking an apartment during the day ONLY or for 4 hours ONLY -- based on my experience, i have never heard of such a concept)

Hence if the min. number of apartment night bookings (made through the 8000 apartments) is 8000 -- the min. number of hotel night bookings then must be  atleast  64,000 hotel night bookings based on the ratio (8:1)

But we still don't know if this min. value of 64,000 hotel night bookings is causing the 50,000 fewer night bookings speifically (unless we know the number of apartments booked or night bookings through apartments made in 2010 first)

Is this how you reason through eliminating B ?

avigutman · Answer

Miami@50 is a “new website” which is being blamed for the decrease in business going from 2010 to 2011, so the answer choices will be referring to 2011 unless otherwise stated. 
Why should we care about the number of hotel room nights booked through Miami@50? Does it affect the argument in any way?

Posted from my mobile device

jabhatta2 · Answer

I see what you mean - given the number of hotel room nights booked through Miami@50 (whether it be 1 million hotel night bookings in 2011 or 100,000 hotel night bookings in 2011) - it still will NOT weaken the   **specific**   retort put forth by the owner of Miami@50 (i.e. the number of apartments booked through my site was only 8,000)

We need to focus on weakening the specific retort put forth by the owner only.

Hence B is wrong.

Just one followup - would you agree an option F would also   not   weaken the owner's retort ?

Option F) Number of hotel night booking through Miami@50 was 100,000 in 2010. Number of hotel night bookings through Miami@50 increased by 100,000 to 200,000 hotel night bookings in 2011 alone.

Do you think option F would weaken OR again - option F doesn't weaken the specific retort (about 8000 apartments) by the owner and hence irrelevant.

Thank you so much.

avigutman · Answer

Yes, F doesn’t affect the argument either. Note this sentence from the argument:
“In 2011, there were 50,000 fewer hotel room night bookings than there were in 2010.”
That sentence doesn’t indicate which booking services were used, so we’re seeing a general decrease in the number of hotel night bookings, regardless of the specific service used. 
Note also the idiom used in the argument: not only x but also y. 
Miami@50 not only sells 
hotel room bookings at bargain prices but also allows people to rent out their houses. 
The emphasis in this idiom is on ‘y’, not ‘x’. That emphasis makes sense in the context of this argument.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 2011 had 50,000 fewer hotel room nights. Why? Hotel owners say Miami50 not only sells hotel room bookings at bargain prices but also allows people to rent out their houses. Miami50 counters it by saying it only rented 8,000 apartments (not apartment nights), so the economy has reduced hotel room night booking and not Miami50. On a lighter note, The major catch is that one party talks about apples, and the other responds with oranges. The Hotel owners are talking about the room nights while the Miami50 responds by the number of apartments (trying to be over-smart?

) What if - the 8,000 apartments were rented out multiple times? Say 5100 apartments were rented ten times; that means 51000 apartment nights + 4900 > 50,000. We can make multiple combinations to show that the actual apartment nights were more. That is what option C states, Option Elimination - A. Miami50 rents apartments at a much lower price then it rents hotel rooms. - Does matter. Out of scope. B. Miami50 rented out at least 8 times as many hotel room nights bookings as apartments. - Even after counting these, the room nights are still less by 50,000. Distortion. C. Most apartments in that Miami50 rented out were rented out multiple times. - exactly. Per our pre-thinking. D. Miami50’s profit from renting out apartments was higher than it was for renting out hotel rooms. - out of scope. E. Most of Miami50’s customers preferred renting an apartment to renting a hotel room - It still doesn't solve the puzzle. Customer preferences are out of scope.

MartyMurray · Answer

Hotel bookings in Miami are only done through travel websites. In 2011, there were 50,000 fewer hotel room night bookings than there were in 2010. Hotel owners are blaming the apartment renting service by new website Miami$50 that not only sells hotel room bookings at bargain prices but also allows people to rent out their houses. The website owners dispute the charge stating that they only rented out only 8,000 apartments through their website. They claim that the down economy and not their website is responsible for majority of the decline in hotel room bookings.

The owners of Miami$50 claim the following:

the down economy and not their website is responsible for majority of the decline in hotel room bookings

The support for their claim, i.e., conclusion, is the following:

they only rented out only 8,000 apartments through their website

We see that the reasoning of the owners is that, since they rented out only 8,000 apartments, their activities must not be the cause of the decrease of 50,000 in hotel room night bookings.

Which of the following if true most seriously weakens the Miami$50 owners claim?

This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though it's true that Miami$50 rented out only 8,000 apartments, the owners' claim may not be correct.

A. Miami$50 rents apartments at a much lower price then it rents hotel rooms.

This choice has no effect on the argument.

After all, regardless of the price at which Miami$50 rents out apartments, the number of apartments rented out by Miami$50 was only 8,000, a number much smaller than the 50,000 by which the number of hotel room night bookings decreased.

So, the evidence provided appears to support the owners' claim even if this choice is true.

Eliminate.

B. Miami$50 rented out at least 8 times as many hotel room nights bookings as apartments.

Notice that what this choice says is basically that Miami$50 RENTED OUT MANY HOTEL ROOMS.

The fact that Miami$50 rented out hotel rooms would not have caused the number of hotel rooms rented out to decrease. If anything, this choice indicates that Miami$50 helped hotels to rent out rooms.

So, this choice does not cast doubt on the conclusion  that the down economy and not their   website is responsible for majority of the decline in hotel room bookings. If anything, this choice goes in the direction of the conclusion.

Eliminate.

C. Most apartments that Miami$50 rented out were rented out multiple times.

This choice is interesting.

The evidence the owners use to support their claim is that the number of apartments rented out by Miami$50 was only 8,000, a number much smaller than the 50,000 by which the number of hotel room night bookings decreased.

So, what if this choice is true?

In that, case, while Miami$50 rented out only 8,000 apartments, the number of apartment night bookings facilitated by Miami$50 could be much higher than 8,000. The number could even be 50,000 or higher if, on average, an apartment rented out by Miami$50 was rented out several times.

So, this choice casts doubt on the owners' conclusion by showing that, even though it's true that Miami$50 rented out only 8,000 apartments, that evidence may not support the conclusion since, in renting out each of the 8,000 apartments multiple times, Miami$50 could have caused a reduction of 50,000 in the number of hotel room nights booked.

Keep.

D. Miami$50's profit from renting out apartments was higher than it was for renting out hotel rooms.

This choice has no effect on the argument.

After all, regardless of how Miami$50's profit from renting out apartments compared with its profit from renting out hotel rooms, the number of apartments rented out by Miami$50 was only 8,000, a number much smaller than the 50,000 by which the number of hotel room night bookings decreased.

So, the evidence provided appears to support the owner's claim even if this choice is true.

Eliminate.

E. Most of Miami$50's customers preferred renting an apartment to renting a hotel room.

This choice has no effect on the argument.

After all, regardless of what Miami$50's customers preferred, the number of apartments rented out by Miami$50 was only 8,000, a number much smaller than the 50,000 by which the number of hotel room night bookings decreased.

So, the evidence provided appears to support the owner's claim even if this choice is true.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  C

SmileAndSolve · Answer

The question is not about direct hotel owner vs Miama$50 hotel bookings, but the reason for overall decline in the hotel bookings.

SmileAndSolve · Answer

The question is not about direct hotel owner vs Miama$50 hotel bookings, but the reason for overall decline in the hotel bookings.

Vibhatu · Answer

In D why profits are out of scope? Maybe website make bigger profit through apartments so they promote it so people rent it more than the hotel rooms?

Hotel bookings in Miami are only done through travel

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Hotel bookings in Miami are only done through travel

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards