Curator: If our museum lends Venus to the Hart Institute for their show this spring, they will lend us their...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Curator: If our museum lends Venus to the Hart Institute for their show this spring, they will lend us their Rembrandt etchings for our print exhibition next fall. Having those etchings will increase attendance to the exhibition and hence increase revenue from our general admission fee.
Museum Administrator: But Venus is our biggest attraction. Moreover the Hart's show will run for twice as long as our exhibition. So on balance the number of patrons may decrease.
The point of the administrator's response to the curator is to question
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| If our museum lends Venus to the Hart Institute for their show this spring, they will lend us their Rembrandt etchings for our print exhibition next fall. |
|
| Having those etchings will increase attendance to the exhibition and hence increase revenue from our general admission fee. |
|
| But Venus is our biggest attraction. |
|
| Moreover the Hart's show will run for twice as long as our exhibition. |
|
| So on balance the number of patrons may decrease. |
|
Argument Flow:
The curator presents a trade proposal with expected benefits, but the administrator counters by pointing out two key problems with this plan - we'd be giving up our most popular piece, and for a longer period than we'd benefit from their loan.
Main Conclusion:
The administrator concludes that the proposed Venus-for-etchings trade would likely result in fewer total visitors to the museum.
Logical Structure:
The administrator uses two pieces of evidence (Venus is our biggest draw + unequal loan periods) to challenge the curator's assumption that the trade would increase revenue, ultimately arguing the opposite outcome is more likely.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Misc - This is asking us to identify what the administrator is trying to question or challenge in the curator's argument. We need to pinpoint the specific aspect of the curator's reasoning that the administrator is targeting.
Precision of Claims
The curator makes a quantitative claim about revenue increasing from more attendance, while the administrator counters with comparative claims (Venus is biggest attraction, Hart's show runs twice as long) and a net outcome prediction (patron decrease).
Strategy
For this misc question asking what the administrator is questioning, we need to analyze what specific part of the curator's logic the administrator is challenging. The curator argues: lending Venus → getting etchings → more attendance → more revenue. The administrator counters by highlighting what we lose (Venus, our biggest draw) and the unfair time exchange (twice as long). So the administrator is fundamentally questioning whether the trade will actually result in the promised benefit.
This choice suggests the administrator is questioning whether the Rembrandt etchings will increase attendance at all. However, the administrator doesn't challenge the curator's claim that the etchings will bring more visitors. Instead, the administrator accepts this possibility but argues that the losses from lending Venus will outweigh any gains. The administrator's focus is on the net effect, not on whether the etchings have any positive impact.
This choice focuses on whether people who like Venus will appreciate the Rembrandt etchings. The administrator's argument isn't about visitor preferences or appreciation - it's about numbers and timing. The administrator doesn't question the quality or appeal of the etchings; they question whether the trade makes mathematical sense given what they're giving up.
This perfectly captures what the administrator is questioning. The administrator acknowledges that Venus is their biggest attraction (so lending it means losing many visitors) and notes that Hart's show runs twice as long (meaning they lose Venus longer than they gain the etchings). The administrator's conclusion that 'the number of patrons may decrease' directly reflects this comparison between visitors lost (from lending Venus) versus visitors gained (from the etchings). This is exactly the comparative analysis the administrator is challenging.
This choice focuses specifically on comparing revenue between the two exhibition periods. While revenue is mentioned in the curator's argument, the administrator's response focuses more broadly on patron numbers and doesn't specifically compare revenues between the spring and fall exhibitions. The administrator's concern is about overall visitor impact, not period-to-period revenue comparison.
This choice asks about which institution benefits more financially from the exchange. The administrator's argument isn't about fairness between institutions or comparative financial gains. The administrator is focused on whether their own museum benefits at all from the proposed trade, not on which museum comes out ahead.