Weaken problem -- Lightbox, Inc.

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

Weaken problem -- Lightbox, Inc.

by amysky_0205 » Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:29 am
Lightbox, Inc., owns almost all of the movie theaters in Washington County and has announced plans to double the number of movie screens it has in the county within five years. Yet attendance at Lightbox's theaters is only just large enough for profitability now and the county's population is not expected to increase over the next ten years. Clearly, therefore, if there is indeed no increase in population, Lightbox's new screens are unlikely to prove profitable.

Which of the following, if true about Washington County, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.Though little change in the size of the population is expected, a pronounced shift toward a younger, more affluent, and more entertainment-oriented population is expected to occur.

B.The sales of snacks and drinks in its movie theaters account for more of Lightbox's profits than ticket sales do.

C.In selecting the mix of movies shown at its theaters, Lightbox's policy is to avoid those that appeal to only a small segment of the moviegoing population.

D.Spending on video purchases, as well as spending on video rentals, is currently no longer increasing.

E.There are no population centers in the county that are not already served by at least one of the movie theaters that Lightbox owns and operates.

OA: A

Cause:
Population isn't expected to increase in the next 10 years.

Effect:
Lightbox's new screens are unlikely to prove profitable.

Can someone explain this one?
and am i thinking the right way? thank u so much!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:11 am
The logical flaw that this argument makes is equating population size with movie theater profitability. So you're right - the premises state that the population will not go up, and the conclusion drawn is that the screens will not be profitable. So what information is missing? The author of this argument is assuming that the movie-viewing habits (or movie-spending habits) of the population will not change.

When we're looking to weaken the argument, we want to find the answer choice that speaks to that logical flaw. Choice A is the only one that suggests that the movie-viewing habits of the population will change, even while the population size does not change. None of the others address that change.

Let me know if you need further clarification.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

by amysky_0205 » Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:31 pm
ceilidh.erickson wrote:The logical flaw that this argument makes is equating population size with movie theater profitability. So you're right - the premises state that the population will not go up, and the conclusion drawn is that the screens will not be profitable. So what information is missing? The author of this argument is assuming that the movie-viewing habits (or movie-spending habits) of the population will not change.

When we're looking to weaken the argument, we want to find the answer choice that speaks to that logical flaw. Choice A is the only one that suggests that the movie-viewing habits of the population will change, even while the population size does not change. None of the others address that change.

Let me know if you need further clarification.
Hi Ericson,

thank u for ur reply (:

I would also like to ask option C.

tks a lot!