A good way to look at it is this:

the author argues that fewer people are interested in fine arts, and his only piece of evidence is that record attendance at art museums is not evidence against his point--that attendance at museums does not matter.

Choice B also tells us that museum attendance does not determine interest in fine arts--that attendance at museums does not matter.

Thus, choice B restates evidence.

But because we already take stated evidence as true, choices that restate evidence are automatically wrong in stn/wkn questions. (*takeaway*)

thanks Testluv for the inputs.....

here is something that I have to say....

say previously the total no. of visitors was 50.

the total no. of visits was more than 100.

here the total no. of "more than once " visitors was say 20

Now the total no. of visits increased to 120.

as per option A , the total no. of "more than once " visitors must increase to more than 40, say 45.

Now considering that the "more than once " visitors accounts for 2 visits each, the total increase visits has to increase by atleast 50.

but as we see, the total no. of visits has increased by 20 only.

is not this contradicting?

now, the only way we can make this happen is by assuming that the no. of "one time visitors" is actually decreasing and so the conclusion.

I might be dropping a bomb here by mentioning some baseless logic but this is the way looked at it.

Will someone pl. help?

now, the only way we can make this happen is by assuming that the no. of "one time visitors" is actually decreasing

...wouldn't that strengthen his argument that fewer and fewer people are interested in going to these museums?

Choice A is basically telling you that the increase in attendance is due to museum-lovers ("more than once" visitors") upping their attendance rather than to more people being attracted to museums.

yes.....that's right..

I just wanted my logic to be approved so that I can be sure.....

regards,

Ansumania