Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C

Question

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

(C) People often turn a blind eye toward cruelty if it results in something beneficial or entertaining to them.

(D) The cruelty of methods used by animal trainers in the Jumbo Circus was exaggerated in the article.

(E) The higher prices on Jumbo Circus tickets were caused by a permanent need to treat animals that were injured during trainings.

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

Hi samichange ,
In this case we need to find a choice that says that the people are unaffected by the article.
Only options B and C do that, but C is too far fetched. We cannot say anything about the attitude of people towards cruelty.

Hence Option B is the answer

kanigmat011 · Answer

Hi Experts

Kindly help us on how to resolve this by negation technique
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

If we apply it here on B

People who go to other circuses are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

But this doesn't effect the conclusion in fact A is better in weakening the conclusion when negated

Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

Kindly help us on this

manasdash1 · Answer

If we look close, the fact that people are aware of the cruelty is implicit.

in other circuses that still attract crowds ........... no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, ...........not because the cruelty ....... was  revealed .

But if we ask what can be the reason that people stopped visiting Jumbo, but still visit other circuses(where there is still animal cruelty), the answer is easily the Price being doubled. That implies price is the only difference, cruelty was already there--> people were aware of it.

Hope it helps.

daboo343 · Answer

option B will be right ans
if we negate option b it will shatter the conclusion

warriorguy · Answer

If we negate A --

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

--- Then we hurt the conclusion since the reason for the drop is based on cruelty on the animals and not because of price hike. However, this statement is similar to the statement in the stimulus - "Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. " --> Is that the reason why we eliminate A?

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

- People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses but could be aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus. Hence it should be price hike that led to price drop in Jumbo circus --> If we negate B, doesn't it actually support the conclusion rather than breaking it? :oops:

sayantanc2k · Answer

Option A is a weakening statement as you have correctly mentioned.

Negating B:
People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses (but are aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus.) Thus the reason for not going to Jumbo Circus may not be the price difference, but the people's sentiment against animal cruelty. This inference is exactly opposite of the conlusion of the argument. Hence option B is an assumption.

sayantanc2k · Answer

1. Yes, your understanding is correct. I conveyed my agreement with your statement in the previous post about option A.
2. What you have stated in point 2 is for strengthening statements. An assumption MUST BE TRUE not IF TRUE.
3. Yes, you are right. Negating option B establishes that C caused A, not B.

chesstitans · Answer

this is a common pattern in gmat, kaplan 800 has this pattern. Nevertheless, this pattern is very tricky because test takers often mistakes assumption for strengthener or weakener. 
A and D are OFS. E is weakener and OFS (talk about price) 
B is better than C. (b/c C is OFS and strengthener and unclear and too broad)

ningsopit · Answer

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

not cruelty (but P^) >>> Audience drop

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

Cruelty >> Audience not drop 
Mistaken negation could not be true!

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

Aware = not cruelty (so it's P^) >> Audience drop (defendant assumption)

negate: People who go to those circuses are not aware of cruelty so they will aware of the cruelty of Jumbo Circus only! Then Cruelty >>> Audience drop (hurt conclusion)

(C) People often turn a blind eye toward cruelty if it results in something beneficial or entertaining to them.

(D) The cruelty of methods used by animal trainers in the Jumbo Circus was exaggerated in the article.

(E) The higher prices on Jumbo Circus tickets were caused by a permanent need to treat animals that were injured during trainings.

sintlaborum · Answer

Hello, I am still confused how answer choice B is correct, rather than question choice A. I tried negating for both answer choices, and I still feel like it's a close call. I'm not seeing yet how B is the clear answer. Thank you!

guddo · Answer

The argument claims Jumbo Circus’s attendance drop is due to higher ticket prices, not the expose on animal cruelty, because other circuses using equally cruel methods still draw crowds. This reasoning assumes people know about the cruelty in those other circuses too. If they were unaware, the comparison wouldn’t work, people might still avoid Jumbo specifically because of the article.

Option B states this directly: people who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used there. Without this awareness, the argument’s logic falls apart, making B the necessary assumption.

Other options are not required:
- A is about timing but doesn’t support the price‐vs‐cruelty comparison.
- C suggests people overlook cruelty, which might be true but isn’t essential to the argument.
- D claims the article exaggerated cruelty, which isn’t needed, even if true, awareness of cruelty elsewhere still matters.
- E explains why prices rose but doesn’t address why cruelty isn’t the cause.

Thus,  B is the assumption .

guddo · Answer

The argument says: Other circuses are just as cruel but still packed, so cruelty can’t be why Jumbo lost customers.

But that only makes sense if people going to  those  circuses  know  they’re cruel. If they don’t know, then maybe Jumbo’s crowd left because the article exposed them, while other circuses are busy because people are in the dark. That wrecks the comparison.

Option B says people going to other circuses are aware of the cruelty. Without that, the argument falls apart.

Option A is about timing, whether attendance dropped right after the article. Even if it did, the argument could still say, “Well, other cruel circuses are fine, so it must be price anyway.” So A isn’t necessary.

B is the must-have assumption. A isn’t.

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C

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

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C

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