RBBmba@2014 wrote:A study of ticket sales at a summer theater festival found that people who bought tickets to individual plays had a no-show rate of less than 1 percent, while those who paid in advance for all ten plays being performed that summer had a no-show rate of nearly 30 percent. This may be at least in part because the greater the awareness customers retain about the cost of an item, the more likely they are to use it.

Which of the following would, if true, best serve as an alternative explanation of the results of the study?

(A) The price per ticket was slightly cheaper for those who bought all ten tickets in advance.
(B) Many people who attended the theater festival believed strongly that they should support it financially.
(C) Those who attended all ten plays became eligible for a partial refund.
(D) Usually, people who bought tickets to individual plays did so immediately prior to each performance that they attended.
(E) People who arrived just before the performance began could not be assured of obtaining seats in a preferred location.

OA: D

Source: OG 2016,CR Qs.39

@Verbal Experts - although I got this one correct, but would like to know why EXACTLY A and C are wrong ?
Please share your analysis on this CR.

Imagine a simple real-world scenario. I bought the 10 play package. You bought a ticket for one play. You show up. I don't. We're trying to understand why.

The initial argument is that if you remember more about the cost of an individual ticket, you're more likely to go. (It's a strange argument. How hard would it be to determine the price per ticket of a 10-ticket package?) We're looking for an alternative explanation for why you'd go and I wouldn't.

'A' doesn't shed any light on why you'd attend and I wouldn't. Say you bought your ticket for $30, and I bought a 10-ticket package for $280. The fact that I'm paying $28/show doesn't really explain why I'd be less likely to go than you would. Presumably, I was interested in seeing the show when I bought the tickets. I paid nearly as much as you did. So why am I not there?

'C' is even worse. If I get a refund for attending all the plays, I should be more motivated to attend, not less.

Hi DavidG@VeritasPrep,
Thanks for the reply. Got it; just would like to know whether A & C can be eliminated for the following reason as well (on top of what you already mentioned above) ?

Reason to eliminate A: In any way, people will end up paying more than they pay for a single ticket. So, if they're really cost-aware then they seem to be more likely to go to those shows for which they made advance payment.

Reason to eliminate C: This "partial refund" will come into play after attending the theater. So, before attending, people just may not know about the refund. So, in that way C simply doesn't stand as an alternative explanation.

Thoughts ?

Reason to eliminate A: In any way, people will end up paying more than they pay for a single ticket. So, if they're really cost-aware then they seem to be more likely to go to those shows for which they made advance payment.

Sounds valid to me. (And I'd add that the modifier "slightly" suggests that the price difference, whatever it is, is basically irrelevant.)

Reason to eliminate C: This "partial refund" will come into play after attending the theater. So, before attending, people just may not know about the refund. So, in that way C simply doesn't stand as an alternative explanation.

Well, I don't think we can make the assumption that this is a surprise refund that ticket-buyers will only find out about after they attend. Think of it this way. If they know about the refund, they're be more motivated to attend, not less. If they don't know about the refund, it's irrelevant, as far as incentives go. Either way, it can't possibly be the correct answer.