Knewton CR

[czarczar]

Currently, the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium has only expensive theater-style seating. Most Badgers fans would prefer to pay for less expensive bench seats due to the fact that they already stand for most of the game to see as much as possible. However, patrons in other stadiums' bench seating sections often leave their seats, because the bench seats are uncomfortable, and many of those trips are used to buy food or souvenirs from stadium concession stands. Thus, if the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium replaced some of its theater-style seating with bench seating, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


(A) some fans come to the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium to support their team by waving signs, and so might choose bench seating so that they can stand on their seats

(B) the revenue from snacks ordered by fans in bench seating compensates for any revenue lost from patrons buying tickets for less expensive seats

(C) patrons of the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium who would choose bench seating would be an exception to the generalization about patrons leaving their seats more often

(D) a stadium's patrons who spend less time seated typically purchase less expensive snacks than those who spend more time in their seats

(E) if there were enough bench seating to accommodate all the Bridgetown Badgers fans interested in such seating, many fans would not be able to see the game

OA:C

I have a specific questions: What is the problem with option :B ?

[amar66]

Initially I thought B,but after doing some introspection I realized that author made mistake while making this argument.
What if the patrons sitting on bench seats would not abandon their seats? So no trips to snacks & this will result in less revenue. Eventually it means that the generalization made by the author is vulnerable to criticism since author assumed that fans sitting on bench seats will abandon their seats.

[amar66]

And btw, B supports the argument rather than criticizing it. It tells that the revenue will be compensated so it strengthen the argument. In this case profit will rise.
On the other hand by assuming C, we can conclude that the profit will fall.

[czarczar]

And btw, B supports the argument rather than criticizing it. It tells that the revenue will be compensated so it strengthen the argument. In this case profit will rise.
On the other hand by assuming C, we can conclude that the profit will fall.

I'm not able to understand howcome B is supporting argument.
It is also showing the flaw in the argument.

I got the point that why C is right , but I am not getting any reason to rule out option B.

[amar66]

B were right if question would have asked about strengthen the argument.

Here conclusion is "increase in profit":

B suggests us that stadium revenue loss will be compensated by sales of snacks. So it means there would be no revenue loss. It directly tends to rise in profit, which is our conclusion. There is no flaw in this reasoning.

Whereas C directly attacks the conclusion & reveals the criticism of the argument.

[M09]

Currently, the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium has only expensive theater-style seating. Most Badgers fans would prefer to pay for less expensive bench seats due to the fact that they already stand for most of the game to see as much as possible. However, patrons in other stadiums' bench seating sections often leave their seats, because the bench seats are uncomfortable, and many of those trips are used to buy food or souvenirs from stadium concession stands. Thus, if the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium replaced some of its theater-style seating with bench seating, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


(A) some fans come to the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium to support their team by waving signs, and so might choose bench seating so that they can stand on their seats

(B) the revenue from snacks ordered by fans in bench seating compensates for any revenue lost from patrons buying tickets for less expensive seats

(C) patrons of the Bridgetown Badgers' Stadium who would choose bench seating would be an exception to the generalization about patrons leaving their seats more often

(D) a stadium's patrons who spend less time seated typically purchase less expensive snacks than those who spend more time in their seats

(E) if there were enough bench seating to accommodate all the Bridgetown Badgers fans interested in such seating, many fans would not be able to see the game

OA:C

I have a specific questions: What is the problem with option :B ?

I had to read the question twice. BTW this question looks something similar to a question - people choose seat to watch celebrity ....." I don't remember the exact words.
Read the question it says "gives reason to believe that it is likely that"
I think option B is irrelevant - the argument doesn't talk about revenue from snacks etc..also doesn't make us believe anything on snacks etc
It just says that if seating type is changed to bench seating then profit will increase.
In order to conclude the above it makes us believe that the patrons will leave the seats as usual. In other words, patrons who take bench seating are an exception.

[cyrwr1]

I agree with M09 as this question is similar to celebrity singers and stool chairs or something.

C is correct as it attacks the concept that if fans choose bench seats, they are there to enjoy the game and not complain and walk around to buy stuff. Hence, those who chose the seats know what they are doing!

[amit2k9]

tough C here.