TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat

Question

TheaterGoer : In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then. Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Megaplex’s own sales figures, Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.

B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.

C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.

D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear mba1382 , I got your private message, and I am happy to help. :-)

You seem to be asking about choices (D) & (E) , and so I will assume that we can ignore the first three and agree that they are incorrect. Here's the argument with the last two choices only: TheaterGoer : In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then. Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Megaplex’s own sales figures, Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ? D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year. It is an standard assumption in marketing that what remains fixed is the percent of people who like a product or make some kind of purchase, and much of marketing is concerned with increasing the total traffic, increasing the raw number of people encountering the venue, because if the total number increases, the same percent will result in much higher sales. All of web marketing is based on this principle --- increase SEO & visitors to the site, and a larger number of visitors to the site will result in more sales, even though the percent of visitors who purchase remains more or less constant. Let's think about choice (D) . Suppose in January, 2012, they started using the canola oil (yuck!) rather than the good saturated-fat-filled coconut oil. We will think about (D) , and let's make it a little more extreme to understand better. Suppose in 2011, the theater had 1,000,000 visitors, and in 2012, they had 2,000,000 visitors. Instead of a 20% increase, we'll just say that it was 100% increase, for simplicity. If the popcorn remained absolutely unchanged 2011 until 2012, then every marketing model on Earth would predict that, in 2012, with twice the people, they would sell twice the popcorn. Very simple. Now, consider the fact that, between 2011 and 2012, in addition to twice the visitors , from 1M to 2M, the theater also made the oil change to the popcorn, as as a result, popcorn increased only 5% from 2011 to 2012. Without changing the oil, popcorn sales would have increased 100%, just as the visitors did (at least according to any marketing model on Earth), and with the oil change, popcorn sales increased only 5% --- not good. If sales of the item grow at any rate less than the rate of traffic increase, that necessarily means that a lower percent of total visitors want the popcorn, and the only change to which this could be attributed is the change in the oil. Thus, choice (D) indicates there's a significant problem with the use of canola oil, which gives good reason for the theater's decision to change back to coconut oil, and therefore obliterates the theater goer's argument that the theater has no good reason for changing back. Choice (E) is irrelevant, because it is talking about size of popcorn sale, and we don't know anything about how the number of theater goers changed. Continuing the dates I was using above, let's say that in 2010, the theater experienced 10% increase in popcorn sales over the sales in 2009. Now suppose that from 2008 to 2011, the number of visitors at the theater each year remained constant. If the same number of people are coming, and they buy 10% more in popcorn, then that means more people are buying popcorn --- that's good. But then, in January 2012, they change the oil, and the number of visitors wildly increases, but the popcorn sales don't wildly increase --- then, that's not so good. This is just one possible scenario, but depending on how the number of theater visitors changed from year to year is exactly what determines whether the percent change in sales is a good thing or not. What matters the most is how the percent change in total popcorn sales compares the percentage change in total number of customers --- what we most expect is for those to change in lock-step with one another, because that would mean the percent of people buying popcorn would remain constant; if the percent change in total popcorn sales is greater than or less than the percent change in total visitors, that indicates a change in the percent of people who buy popcorn, and that typically doesn't change too much unless there's a good reason. We don't have enough information in (E) to determined whether the information given is relevant or not. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

b2bt · Answer

Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

TheatreGoers Claim - Sales of popcorn is not affected by the oil being used
What we have to do - Weaken the claim by theatrgoer i.e. Despite 5% increase there is something which shows us that sales are infact being affected.
Conflict is between D and E.

Let me take E first.
According to E in 2013 sales increased by 10%
So in 2014 sales increased by 5% more than 10 %
Can you see the sales are still higher so in this case we can not weaken the argument of theatre goer
In D
in 2013 - Let's attendance is 100. People buying popcorn is 60. (please note 60% of total ppl coming to theatre)
in 2014 - Attendance is 120 (20% more than previous year). People buying popcorn is 63 (5% percent more than previous here)
If the popcorn were cooked in coconut oil sales should be at least 60% which is 72.

Math is not really needed if your logic is quite clear. Just noticing more in the last sentence, you can negate option E and straightway mark D even without knowing why it is right

vivmechster · Answer

Conclusion: claim is false, What is the claim? - Switching from coconut oil to canola oil hurt the sales.

To weaken the conclusion we need to prove, claim is true, means change has hurt the sales.

Additional info: Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
means: in 2011 - 100gm PC
in 2012 - 105gm PC.

Now POE:

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.  OFS
 B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.  - OFS
 C.Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.  - not concerned about the prefrence of the people.
 D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before. 
2011: attendance 100....Sales: 100gm - everybody ate 1gm of PC
2012: Attendence 125....Sales: 105gm - everybody ate <1gm of PC

E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year. 
This choice is out of time, talking about sales increase in 2011 over 2010.

Hope this helps!

mba1382 · Answer

Nope sorry . I am still not convinced with your Math Logic to be honest. My question is :

Option D says only about attendance of the theater and doesn't really say that the increase in the attendance actually means increased purchase of popcorn sales.

Konstantin1983 · Answer

The source of this question is GMAT Prep. Please read this topic in-january-of-last-year-the-moviemania-chain-of-movie-51258.html?fl=similar
Looks like OA is A and here we have incorrect OA. Moreover, mikemcgarry explains why A is correct choice

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Konstantin1983 My friend, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to clear up the confusion surrounding this question. :-)

Unfortunately, I believe the individual who posted the question at that link (51258) was mistaken about a number of details. I do not believe that this is a GMAT Prep question. The language does not sound sophisticated enough. Furthermore, this is a challenging question, and every challenging GMAT Prep question is discussed extensively in the MGMAT forums, but from what I can tell, the MGMAT forums never touch this questions (the folks at MGMAT are scrupulous about not discussing questions on their forums unless these questions are their own or from official sources). It's clear that (A) is weakens the theater's argument, which strengthens the theater-goer's argument: this is a classic trap answer, but all over the web, there is more discussion that (A) is the answer rather than (D). It is possible that whoever wrote the question wrote question so hard that he didn't understand it himself: believe it or not, that happens sometimes. It is possible the source, whatever it is, thought the OA was (A), which is wrong. It generates terrible confusion when the folks writing the questions don't have a deep understanding, but sometimes the desire to start a test-prep company and make money is considerably stronger than the scholarship & intellectual strength. GMAT students preparing for the test have to be highly discerning about source quality, because not every company that advertises "high quality GMAT practice questions" actually can deliver on that claim. Caveat emptor . Once again, my friend, thank you for your attempt to inject some clear-sighed rationality into a very muddled debate. Mike :-)

septwibowo · Answer

The key to answering this question is to know the conclusion.

IMO, the conclusion is " sales popcorn doesn't decline "

Now, our task is to find the fact that can break this conclusion.  Any facts that show or give the signs that sales popcorn DOES decline is the answer.

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year. 
 The sales of popcorn swim the tide. Incorrect.

B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.
 Irrelevant.

C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.
 Preference might not relate directly to the sales.

D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
 Aha! If the increase of the attendance is 20%, why sales of popcorn just rise 5%? Maybe there is something wrong!

E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
 This show that in the last two years, sales always rise, no decline. Incorrect.

rahul16singh28 · Answer

Hi Experts,

Why cant we have A as the answer?? The theatreGoer insists that Megaplex shouldnt switch back bcoz Megaples sold 5% more popcorn than last year. Option A says that the overall sales of refreshment was less than 5% which obviously means that Megaplex didnt sell more than 5% last year..

Please correct me if I am wrong??

septwibowo · Answer

Hi.. I'm not an expert, but will try to explain based on my understanding.

Firstly, we must analyze the option based on the conclusion : " sales popcorn doesn't decline ".
Moreover, the question ask about WEAKEN, means we must find any evidence that says that " sales popcorn DOES decline. "

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.
 When we analyze this option, we know that even though sales of ALL refreshment increased less by 5 percent, sales of POPCORN increased 5%.
What does this mean? Though sales in total were struggling, popcorn still sold more than any other refreshment in the Megaplex.

So, based on option A, we STILL cannot find the evidence that say " sales popcorn DOES decline. "

Hope this helps.

mba757 · Answer

Conclusion : That claim is false,

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.
 Opposite – If anything, this would strengthen the argument. Presumably, popcorn and refreshment sales would increase proportionally. But maybe, people just really like the new popcorn, so they bought an extra container of it.

B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.
 This is taking us into another direction/topic – i.e., sales of movie tickets. We’re not concerned with sales of movie tickets. We want to know why the claim (i.e., the change has hurt popcorn sales) is false despite the evidence.

C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.
 Doesn’t take us in the right direction. Last year, (1) popcorn sales were MORE than that of the previous year AND (2) MP switched to canola oil FROM coconut oil (i.e., they were using canola oil last year). If customers preferred coconut oil, wouldn’t it make sense for sales to go down, NOT be 5% MORE than that of last year?

D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.
  This is it. Proportionally, we would presume that if more people then more food sales. Total attendance (i.e., people) increased by 20% but popcorn sales (i.e., food) was ONLY a 5% increase. There’s a disconnect here. This would weaken the argument.

E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.
 This doesn’t provide us with a reason to WHY there was a 5% increase the year before. This could almost strengthen. The year before last, MP was using coconut oil. What if the market was saturated after that 10% increase, but MP thought of the innovative idea to switch to canola oil, leading to a 5% increase in sales (which may not have been possible w/ the coconut oil because they already increased the most it could possibly be increased). It’s a stretch, but this is not the correct answer.

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's start by breaking down the argument.

Conclusion: The claim that switching oils in January of  last year  hurt popcorn sales is false.   Evidence: Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

So basically, the argument is saying that Megaplex's popcorn sales were NOT hurt. Why? Because they actually sold  more  popcorn after switching oils last January.

Let's take a look at answer choice (D):

The argument concludes that popcorn sales were NOT hurt last year, because popcorn sales went up by 5% last year over the previous year. Answer choice (D) says that attendance was 20% higher last year than the previous year. Would that weaken the argument?

It would. If theater attendance went up by more than 20%, and the percentage of people who bought popcorn held steady, you'd expect popcorn sales to go up by more than 20% as well. But popcorn sales only went up by 5%. So that means a smaller percentage of people were buying popcorn. That suggests popcorn sales  were  hurt, which weakens the argument. Hold on to (D).

Let's examine (E):

The conclusion is about last year's popcorn sales versus the previous year's popcorn sales. But (E) doesn't compare last year to the previous year. In fact, (E) compares the year  before last  to the year before  that . For that reason, it's irrelevant to the conclusion.

Overall, since (E) doesn't address a change between last year and the previous year, it doesn't relate to the argument. Eliminate (E).

That leaves us with (D), the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

MartyMurray · Answer

Theatergoer : In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then. Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Megaplex’s own sales figures, Megaplex sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

That claim (that the change has hurt popcorn sales) is false

The support for the conclusion is the following:

according to Megaplex’s own sales figures, Megaplex sold 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since popcorn sales have increased, it must not be the case that the change has hurt sales.

An aspect of the argument that we might notice is that  increased  and  not hurt  are two different things. In other words, the fact that something has increased doesn't mean that nothing has hurt it.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument ?

This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though sales of popcorn increased, it still could be the case that the conclusion is not correct. In other words, the correct answer will show that it could still be the case that the change has hurt sales.

A. Total sales of all refreshments at Megaplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.

If anything, this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the conclusion that sales have not been hurt by the change.

After all, if total sales of all refreshments at the theaters increased by less than 5 percent, then, in increasing by 5 percent, popcorn sales did better than average for sales of refreshments at the theaters.

So, this choice helps to confirm that popcorn sales were strong last year, if anything providing a reason to believe that popcorn sales were not hurt by the change.

Eliminate.

B. Megaplex makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.

This choice present an irrelevant comparison.

After all, the fact that Megaplex makes more money on food and beverage sales than on ticket sales does not indicate whether sales of popcorn were affected by the change.

We're concerned with whether Megaplex would have sold more popcorn without the change, in other words with a comparison of popcorn sales with popcorn sales, not with a comparison of popcorn sales with ticket sales.

Eliminate.

C. Megaplex customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.

This choice is a little tricky.

The fact that customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil might seem to indicate that the change to canola oil did hurt sales, thus indicating that the conclusion is incorrect.

However, the truth it that it remains the case that popcorn sales increased. So, even if customers prefer popcorn popped in coconut oil, the fact that sales increased still appears to support the conclusion that the change did not hurt sales.

Eliminate.

D. Total attendance at Megaplex’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.

This choice is interesting.

The reasoning of the argument is that popcorn sales must not have been hurt by the change since they increased by 5 percent.

Now, notice that this choice indicates that maybe something did hurt popcorn sales.

After all, if attendance increased by 20 percent, then what we'd normally have expected is that popcorn sales also would have increased by around 20 percent. After all, with so many more people in the theaters, we'd expect a pretty sizable increase in sales.

After all, people in the theaters are the people who buy popcorn there. So, a large increase in the number of people would be expected to result in a large increase in popcorn sales.

But such a large increase did not occur. Sales increased by only 5 percent. Wow. What happened?

It appears that something hurt sales, keeping sales from increasing with the number of attendees.

So, while we don't know for sure what may have hurt sales, it could be that sales were hurt by the change in the oil used.

Thus, this choice indicates that the claim that the change hurt sales may NOT be false. In other words, this choice weakens the case for the conclusion.

Keep.

E. The year before last, Megaplex experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.

This choice is tough to eliminate, and if choice (D) were not available, we might be able to argue that this choice is correct because it indicates that there was a change in the trend in popcorn sales. So, we could argue that it could be that the switch caused that change in the trend.

At the same time, this choice is not a clear weakener. So, we can eliminate this choice and choose (D). Here's why.

The fact that sales increased 10 percent the year before last doesn't really indicate that the change hurt popcorn sales last year. After all, we don't have any reason to believe that sales should have continued to grow at 10 percent each year. After all, we don't know why that 10 percent increase occurred.

In fact, we could even argue that, after sales increased by 10 percent, a sizable increase, it was amazing that sales continued to increase last year, increasing by an additional 5 percent.

Basically, regardless of what this choice says about the previous year, it remains that case that popcorn sales increased by 5 percent last year, and the fact that sales increased still appears to support the conclusion that the change in oil did not hurt sales.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  D

Gigii101 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   MartyMurray

I failed this, because i used the trend logic to validate why the change must have hurt the sales.

However, my focus is to not repeat the same mistake. So i was thinking....

Can we say that, for every given scenario, when an option choice implies that 
 something different/similar happening in the past weakens/strengthens and argument about a related occurrence in the present, this option is weak?

For instance, in this case..

because sales increased by 10% in the past doesn't affect the argument. 
meaning, because it happened this way in the past is irrelevant to the argument in the present.

So lets say i see another question talking about how something caused a change in 2024. 
question stem says ... find the best option that "strengthens"

I should be "very suspicious" about an option choice telling me the same change happened in 2023 because of that same "something".

If i see an option that also strengthens, this other option will be the correct answer.

If no other option strengthens, i.e. they are all "clearly" not relevant, only then should i select the options choice .....telling me the same change happened in 2023 because of that same "something".

is this how i should think about it moving forward? Please remember... my goal is to not make the same mistake moving forward.

Thanks.

GMATNinja · Answer

It's understandable that you don't want to make the same mistake. Unfortunately trying to come up with a "formula" that you can apply to CR questions is a bad idea. Every question is unique. If you are relying on a simple "when I see X, do Y" formula instead of thinking really hard about the logic, you'll likely miss something important.

"I failed this, because i used the trend logic to validate why the change must have hurt the sales." It sounds like you missed this question because you were not answering the specific question being asked. We're looking for something that   most seriously weakens   the theatergoer's argument. That's not the same as looking for something that PROVES that the change to canola oil hurt popcorn sales:

Knowing that (D) is true, we'd expect a 20% increase in popcorn sales. Instead, the increase was only 5%.
 
 That means that SOMETHING had a negative effect on popcorn sales, but we don't know what. Maybe the change from coconut oil to canola oil was the culprit. But maybe it was something else.
 
 For example, maybe a new study was released showing that popcorn consumption is linked to hair loss (let's hope not!). In that case, maybe it was the study (and not the change in oil) that had a negative effect on popcorn sales.

Knowing that (D) is true is not enough to determine whether the oil change hurt sales. Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. The theatergoer's conclusion still  might  be correct, but that's fine. (D) still weakens the theatergoer's argument by attacking the evidence used in that argument.

Weakening  an argument is not the same as  disproving  an argument. Going forward, make sure that you are paying close attention to the exact wording of the question and that you are looking for an answer choice that answers the specific question being asked.

I hope that helps!

TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat

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

TheaterGoer: In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theat

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