BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

very tough CR2..Please help....

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:27 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

very tough CR2..Please help....

by src_saurav » Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:48 pm
A manager at a local theme park has proposed doubling the number of attendants at the park's entrance gates, claiming the new attendants will alleviate line congestion. The manager reasons that, since the wait times at the entrance will be reduced from about thirty minutes to ten minutes, more people will visit the park, and the increased revenue will offset the cost of the extra attendants.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the park manager's reasoning is flawed?

a) People who leave the current long lines at the entrance already reduce wait times to some degree.
b) The lines at attractions inside the park already make the average wait times inside considerably longer than those at the entrance.
c) A majority of people who visit the park have season passes, allowing them to bypass the entrance.
d) Many visitors opposing the plan have indicated that they prefer congestion at the entrance to potential overcrowding inside the park.
e) Though the number of attendants will double under the manager's plan, the number of visitors might only increase by 25 percent.

My answer c as that would actually not help him earn more on revenues infact he will end up spending more on attendants.
--------------------
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:33 pm
This question is a little weak because it does not include information on how revenue is generated. Is it only generated at the gate? or is it generated at the rides? or is it generated at both the gate and at the rides?

I am guessing the answer is that it is generated at the rides, and maybe at the gate too, but I am not sure how that makes sense either.

In any case, answer C is a classic GMAT CR wrong answer. It uses the concept of a majority to trap you into thinking that there won't be much more revenue generated by putting more non season customers through the gates. Think about it though. A majority can be anything more than 50 percent. So even if the majority of the people who come to the part have season passes, almost half could be people who do not have season passes. In that case a significant proportion of the customers would need to pass through the gates in order to get into the park.

So having eliminated C, and three other answers, I am guessing that the "right" answer is B, and that the rationale is that the waits at the gates are less significant in constraining revenue generation than are the even longer waits at the rides. So even if people could get through the gates faster, they still would have to wait to get on the rides, and so revenue generation would still be constrained and the plan would not work.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:08 am
src_saurav wrote:A manager at a local theme park has proposed doubling the number of attendants at the park's entrance gates, claiming the new attendants will alleviate line congestion. The manager reasons that, since the wait times at the entrance will be reduced from about thirty minutes to ten minutes, more people will visit the park, and the increased revenue will offset the cost of the extra attendants.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the park manager's reasoning is flawed?

a) People who leave the current long lines at the entrance already reduce wait times to some degree.
This is about the people who are standing in lines to visit the park and to reduce the traffic so that people no longer leave. Thus, this does not help.

b) The lines at attractions inside the park already make the average wait times inside considerably longer than those at the entrance.
The passage speaks nothing about visitor's preference of waiting inside the park. Thus, this ideally is out of scope.

c) A majority of people who visit the park have season passes, allowing them to bypass the entrance.
Despite majority having season passes, problem of waiting in queue still holds good. So, eliminate.

d) Many visitors opposing the plan have indicated that they prefer congestion at the entrance to potential overcrowding inside the park.
The argument is about reducing wait time and weaking a way to reduce wait time. So, no way associated with these.

e) Though the number of attendants will double under the manager's plan, the number of visitors might only increase by 25 percent.
This could have been a strong contender given the data about profits, revenue or expenses. Since nothing is given, it is difficult to conclude.


My answer c as that would actually not help him earn more on revenues infact he will end up spending more on attendants.
The point here is that these seasoned passes are already taken into account i.e., had the seasoned passes not available then the wait time for visitors would be more than it is now.

--------------------

Hope it helps.
Regards,

Pranay
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1