1. We are given the stadium owner's argument against the complaints:
"Large stadiums always attract traffic when there are events, and our venue was built for both sporting events and major concerts, so those businesses should have taken that into account when choosing to locate nearby". Now we need
a statement that is an assumption required by the stadium owner's argument.
2.
The flow of traffic has remained constant throughout the stadium's existence. If the flow of traffic wasn't constant, there would still be times when the traffic would be large and the stadium owner's argument would still be valid.
So, the statement is not an assumption required by the argument.3.
The stadium does not attract more traffic than other, similarly-sized venues. Even if the stadium brought more traffic than expected, businesses should've expected a large traffic anyways. The stadium owner could still give the same argument.
So, the statement is not an assumption required by the argument.4.
The businesses that are complaining moved to the area after the stadium was built. If the businesses moved before the stadium was built, then they couldn't have possibly accounted for large traffic, making the argument redundant.
So, the statement is an assumption required by the argument.5.
The employees and customers of local businesses attend events at the stadium. This is irrelevant since it doesn't change the argument at all if found not true.
So, the statement is not an assumption required by the argument.6.
Not all events at the stadium attract a large volume of traffic. Even if all the events brought large amounts of traffic, the stadium owner could still provide the same argument.
So, the statement is not an assumption required by the argument.