IMO C

A. Does not say anything about increasing revenues by revoking discounts. Irrelevant

B. Even though local businesses did not hear about the promotional campaign, they still bought the city's advertising space. So even without the discounts, the advertising space will sell as much as it did during discounted rates and without discounting the rates, the city could actually increase its revenues. IMO this option looks okay. But unfortunately, this is not the OA.

C. Choice C says that local businesses re-sell their advertising space to non-local businesses "at a significant markup." In other words, local businesses are selling the valuable ad space to buyers who will pay more. If the city revoked their discount, they could boost revenues by selling the desirable ad space at a higher rate to non-local businesses. Choice C is correct.

Here, can we assume that the city is willing to sell advertising space to outside businesses?. Are there no restrictions s such in having such assumption?

D. Strengthening local businesses is never mentioned in the argument. Out of Scope.

E. Opposite answer. This option actually goes on to say that promotional campaigns are in fact necessary. It would've been a very good answer choice if this was a weakening question. But not to be.

IMO C
a) irrelevant
b) against the claim
c) local businesses have sub-leased their leases. Thus they have to pay for that bill board space now whatever the cost.
d) irrelevant
e) this discusses why discount was necessary. irrelevant

Its more about A,B,D,E being incorrect then C being correct
A,E - opposite
B,D - irrelevant
C - correct

A certain city offers publicly owned, desirable billboard-advertising space at heavily discounted monthly rates to locally owned businesses. Since the implementation of this policy, the city has increased the amount of billboard space sold per month. Nevertheless, the city could increase its revenues by revoking these discounts.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim above regarding the city's revenues?

(A) The amount of discount generally offered is carefully calculated to represent the minimum needed to drive sales to local businesses.
(B) The discount was announced through select news channels and websites, but did not receive sufficient coverage for many local businesses to hear about it.
(C) Many local businesses sub-lease their billboard space to non-local businesses at a significant markup.
(D) For established local businesses, the purpose of this promotion is to allow such local businesses to fortify their market position against new chain stores that generally have better access to high-visibility advertisement space.
(E) Prior to the implementation of the discount, many city-owned billboards went empty for lack of interested buyers.

The answer choice is clearly more strong than any other but can anyone please help me understand the why option B cannot be the answer as it also strengthens the argument equally according to me.

[email protected] wrote:
The answer choice is clearly more strong than any other but can anyone please help me understand the why option B cannot be the answer as it also strengthens the argument equally according to me.

B is more or less irrelevant to the argument. The passage is telling us that there are a growing number of local businesses renting the discounted billboard space at a reduced rate. The argument says that eliminating the discount will drive revenue up.

B tells us that there are more local businesses that do not know about the discount. Lets assume they knew about the discount. What would that mean? More would advertise at a reduced rate. Revenue would rise but its rise would have nothing to do with eliminating the discount. We need to see why eliminating the discount will drive revenue. this clearly does not tell us that.