V37-10

Question

In a large urban area, an initiative was launched to integrate interactive digital displays, such as touch-screen information kiosks and augmented reality experiences, in various public spaces. Following the implementation of this initiative, there was a noticeable increase in the number of visitors and the duration of their stay in these areas compared to last year. The initiative's leaders concluded that the interactive digital displays were key in attracting and retaining more visitors.
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the initiative leaders’ conclusion?

A. Surveys reveal that the primary attraction for visitors to these urban areas remains the variety of shopping and dining options available, rather than the interactive digital displays.
B. The interactive digital displays are often located near popular attractions and dining areas, potentially influencing visitor traffic patterns in their vicinity.
C. The urban area has seen an overall increase in tourism due to a city-wide marketing campaign promoting its cultural and entertainment attractions. 
D. The digital displays, while popular, require frequent maintenance and updates to remain functional and engaging for visitors.
E. Periods of heightened visitor engagement coincided with the city’s customary Christmas events and celebrations in these areas.

AdityaMudgal22 · Accepted Answer

I think E is a better answer than C because C just makes a general comment about increase in tourism while this can explain the more number of visitors at public spaces, it cant explain more visitor engagement (duration of stay at public spaces). Also, the increase in visitors can also be due to local population and not necessarily tourism. Seasonal events and festivals would cover both, the increase due tourism and due to local population while also mentioning more visitor engagement

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

In a large urban area, an initiative was launched to integrate interactive digital displays, such as touch-screen information kiosks and augmented reality experiences, in various public spaces. Following the implementation of this initiative, there was a noticeable increase in the number of visitors and the duration of their stay in these areas compared to last year. The initiative's leaders concluded that the interactive digital displays were key in attracting and retaining more visitors.
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the initiative leaders’ conclusion?

A. Surveys reveal that the primary attraction for visitors to these urban areas remains the variety of shopping and dining options available, rather than the interactive digital displays.
B. The interactive digital displays are often located near popular attractions and dining areas, potentially influencing visitor traffic patterns in their vicinity.
C. The urban area has seen an overall increase in tourism due to a city-wide marketing campaign promoting its cultural and entertainment attractions. 
D. The digital displays, while popular, require frequent maintenance and updates to remain functional and engaging for visitors.
E. Periods of heightened visitor engagement coincided with the city’s customary Christmas events and celebrations in these areas.

C. The urban area has seen an overall increase in tourism due to a city-wide marketing campaign promoting its cultural and entertainment attractions.
 
 This choice provides an alternative explanation for the increase in the number of visitors and their duration of stay, independent of the interactive digital displays. If the overall increase in tourism is attributable to a broader marketing campaign, then the specific impact of the digital displays is called into question. This undermines the leaders’ conclusion that the digital displays were key in attracting and retaining more visitors.

A. Surveys reveal that the primary attraction for visitors to these urban areas remains the variety of shopping and dining options available, rather than the interactive digital displays.
 
 This is a trap answer. While this answer choice suggests that other attractions draw in visitors, it misses the point of the argument. The argument claims that there has been an increase in the number of visitors, so we specifically need to negate the increase. Choice A does not explain at all why there is an increase in the number of visitors to these areas. It says "remains" meaning that the trend and attraction was popular before and continues to be now, suggesting these attractions, while they continue to attract people, did not likely contribute to the noticeable increase in people.

B. The interactive digital displays are often located near popular attractions and dining areas, potentially influencing visitor traffic patterns in their vicinity.
 
 This could imply that the displays' location, rather than their content or interactivity, is influencing visitor patterns, but it doesn’t directly counter the claim about their overall impact.

D. The digital displays, while popular, require frequent maintenance and updates to remain functional and engaging for visitors.
 
 This addresses operational challenges but does not directly undermine the assertion about their role in attracting and retaining visitors.

E. This answer choice provides a possible explanation for increased visitor engagement (note that the increase in visitor engagement is not the same as increase in visitors; the same number of visitors may be engaging more). Moreover, these seasonal events and festivals occur regularly, which means they took place even before the installation of the new displays and kiosks, indicating that the events should not have an impact on visitors.

Therefore, (C) most effectively undermines the conclusion that the interactive digital displays were the key factor in increasing visitor numbers and retention, suggesting instead that the increase could be due to a city-wide marketing effort.

Answer: C

VarshithaRS · Answer

Hello @bunnel, 
The passage concludes that the interactive digital displays played a crucial role in attracting and retaining more visitors. However, Option A suggests that other factors, such as shopping and dining options, might be the primary attractions for visitors, rather than the digital displays.

Can you please help me understand, "While this suggests other attractions for visitors, it doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility that the digital displays also contribute significantly to visitor numbers and engagement.",

Although I lean towards Option C as the most solid answer, I'm having difficulty ruling out Option A.

bb · Answer

Sure. Happy to help. Choice A is the trap and your gut is telling you correctly to stay away. You are looking at it as the "Reason people may come to this area" but the question does not ask you to provide a reason why people come to this area. Instead, it is asking, why did MORE people come to this area. If you look at this question from that perspective, Choice A does not explain at all why there is an increse in the number of visitors to these areas. It says "remain" meaning that the trend was happening before and continues now, suggesting these attractions did not really contribute to the change. Hope it helps.

P.S. I will beef up the epxlanation.

Rajan.Sethi2507 · Answer

Hi bb,
It is quite clearly mentioned even in the explanation for choice B that display location rather than content or interactivity is influencing the visitor patterns. why have we ruled out option B?

Regards
Rajan Sethi

bb · Answer

B. The interactive digital displays are often located near popular attractions and dining areas, potentially influencing visitor traffic patterns in their vicinity. Thank yoy for the question. I will improve the explanation to address this point. There are 3 issues with B: 1. It uses the word potentially, which is indicating uncertainty - this is a red flag right away but it is not quite enough usually for me to completely rule it out, just shows this is a WEAK choice. 2. The main reason to rule B out is that it does not undermine the argument. It almost strengthens it, saying that digital displays brought people in. We are trying to disprove the point and say that displays did little or nothing to attract more visitors or keep them there longer. 3. Finally, we are not given any information about the increase in number of visitors. We actually don't even know if the displays are influencing the patterns positively or negatively - they may be scaring people away

Bottom line: We want a choice that says more people came in for a reason OTHER than displays.

Gemmie · Answer

A. Surveys reveal that the primary attraction for visitors to these urban areas remains the variety of shopping and dining options available, rather than the interactive digital displays. 
This simply shows that shopping and dining are still important, but doesn't necessarily negate the role of the displays in attracting visitors.

B. The interactive digital displays are often located near popular attractions and dining areas, potentially influencing visitor traffic patterns in their vicinity. 
The displays could still be attracting visitors, just because they're near other attractions.

C. The urban area has seen an overall increase in tourism due to a city-wide marketing campaign promoting its cultural and entertainment attractions.  
This option most seriously undermines the initiative leaders’ conclusion because it introduces a significant external factor that could explain the increase in visitors. If the overall rise in tourism is primarily due to the city-wide marketing campaign, then the observed increase in visitor numbers and duration of stay might not be attributed to the interactive digital displays.

D. The digital displays, while popular, require frequent maintenance and updates to remain functional and engaging for visitors. 
This option points out maintenance issues but does not directly challenge the role of the displays in increasing visitor numbers.

E. Seasonal events and festivals, which occur regularly in these urban areas, coincide with the periods when increased visitor engagement is observed. 
This focuses on the timing of increased visitor engagement. Even if these events coincide with periods of high display usage, it doesn't necessarily disprove the displays' impact.

pranjalshah · Answer

Hi  bb

I ruled out C during the mock and my reasoning was: the marketing campaign sure increased the number of visitors but how can we say that it increased the duration of their stay? It is possible that the visitors were indeed captivated by those digital displays, making them stay longer.

bb · Answer

Thank you  pranjalshah , you are correct - the answer choice C does not explain the longer duration of the tourist's stay in the areas without neeting extra assumptions/etc - it only explains the greater numbers of people. Did you feel that another choice was undermining the conclusion better or stronger than C?

Venu01298 · Answer

Can someone explain why E is not the right answer? If seasonal events is what contributed to increased visitors, then it offers an alternative explanation right?

bb · Answer

These seasonal events and festivals occur regularly, means they took place even before the installation of the new displays and kiosks, indicating that the events should not have an impact on visitors as they are a constant regularly occurring series of events.

So in other words, these were a coincidence, not an explanation.  
 P.S. To make it less tricky I have replaced "regularly" with annually.

theryjo · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. Re: E.

Just because an event is seasonal or regular does not mean it cannot increase traffic and lead to a false indication of success for the digital displays.

Ex. My new chip flavor was released to during the Super Bowl (a seasonal event) and I observed increased sales of chips relative to the prior month. Therefore my new chip flavor was the cause for increased consumption.

Possibly the fact that the question does not specify the timescales at which impact was observed leads to increased ambiguity in comparing answers. If the period of time in which the increase was observed was shorter than the "regular" intervals of seasonal events and festivals, it would be more likely to be an issue of false attribution of success to the displays.

bb · Answer

Thank you for the suggestion - you bring up a very good point about measurement. I have added that the observations were made compared to previous year and for choice E), I have added a specification that it was customary christmas events, so they would always be at the same time. Does address the concern you brought up?

P.S. As a thank you for helping improve this question, I have added 2 weeks of GMAT Club tests to your account.

isabelc99 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

Ghoskrp3 · Answer

This is a great question that’s helpful for learning.

Swapnil2705 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

ansh952 · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. C also just takes care of the increase in number part of the question and not the increased engagement part.

bb · Answer

Hi. C is the correct answer. Are you suggesting E is a better choice or ?

MaitriD · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. The solution says option A is trap answer as it suggests that other attractions draw in visitors but we need to spe4cifically negate the increase of visitors.

But then how are we choosing option C which is similar to A providing an alternative explanation for increase in the no. of visitors?

V37-10

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