I don't recommend using this problem, because it's not formatted like GMAC's problems.
The departure from GMAC protocol is not small—it's actually the core task in the problem statement that's compromised here.
Specifically... you're supposed to find a way to
thwart the intent of the Committee’s instructions without actually violating the letter of those instructions(...where
this part is your core task.)
At this point, though, you may notice a BIG problem:
WHAT "intent"?The problem never SAYS what the "intent" is!
You're supposed to just... kinda... wave your hands around and 'get' that the intent is to keep clients'/consumers' overall amount spent at the vending machines from increasing any further.
That's not acceptably rigorous for a standardized test, and GMAC's problems don't work that way.
Any element of an argument that's MENTIONED IN THE PROBLEM will ••ALWAYS•• BE EXPLICITLY STATED in the text of the passage.If you have to "weaken a conclusion", then the passage text ••WILL•• EXPLICITLY STATE that 'conclusion'.
If you have to "call into question whether a manager's plan will meet its goal", then the passage text ••WILL•• EXPLICITLY STATE that 'goal'.
etc etc.
For this problem to be worth studying, it MUST have a passage that
explicitly states the 'intent' that you're supposed to circumvent. That doesn't happen, so this problem is not useful as a practice item for the GMAT (and may even undermine what you've learned, either consciously or subconsciously, about the formatting of GMAC's problems.)