kaulnikhil wrote:Accountant: The local zoo's revenue from admissions fees for this year was lower than it has been for the last several years. This year, the zoo shortened its hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. It is likely, therefore, that the zoo's decreased revenue from admissions fees this year is due to the shortened hours of operation.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the accountant's argument?

(A) No customer that arrived to the zoo this year between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. was refused admission.
(B) The amount of time it takes to buy an admission ticket for the zoo has increased in recent years.
(C) The zoo has increased the number of animal species available for visitors to see.
(D) In addition to new hours of operation, this year, the zoo closed for maintenance during several days on which it had remained open in previous years.
(E) A recent report on changes in the popularity of different types of entertainment shows that the popularity of zoos has declined significantly in the last year.

raz1024 wrote:E is a tempting answer here, but ultimately, it is incorrect, because its scope is too broad. We are most interested in what happened at the zoo in question, not at other zoos.

The accountant's argument draws a conclusion about one particular zoo, and thus the strongest weakener will address this zoo alone. You might argue that E could possibly weaken revenue at this zoo, but notice that the question asks which answer choice MOST SERIOUSLY undermines the argument.

For that reason, D is correct. It states that the zoo was closed for several days, and thus it is a much stronger weakener, because it addresses the particular zoo to which the accountant is referring.

And yes, as several of you pointed out, the weakener involves an alternate cause.