Pretzel vendor: The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside the art museum is prohibitively expensive. Charging typical...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Pretzel vendor: The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside the art museum is prohibitively expensive. Charging typical prices, a vendor would need to sell an average of 25 pretzels per hour to break even. At my stand outside city hall, I average only 15 per hour. Therefore, I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a profit.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pretzel vendor's argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| The new license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside the art museum is prohibitively expensive. |
|
| Charging typical prices, a vendor would need to sell an average of 25 pretzels per hour to break even. |
|
| At my stand outside city hall, I average only 15 per hour. |
|
| Therefore, I could not break even running a pretzel stand outside the art museum, much less turn a profit. |
|
Argument Flow:
The vendor starts by establishing that the art museum license fee is too expensive, then shows what sales volume would be needed to justify that cost (25 pretzels/hour). Next, they provide their actual performance data (15 pretzels/hour) as evidence, and finally conclude they can't succeed at the art museum location.
Main Conclusion:
The vendor cannot break even or turn a profit running a pretzel stand outside the art museum.
Logical Structure:
This is a comparison-based argument. The vendor compares what's required (25 pretzels/hour) versus what they actually achieve (15 pretzels/hour) to conclude they would fail at the art museum location. The argument assumes their current performance at city hall would be similar to their performance at the art museum.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the vendor's conclusion (that they can't break even at the art museum) more believable and well-supported.
Precision of Claims
The argument involves precise quantitative claims: 25 pretzels/hour needed at art museum vs 15 pretzels/hour current performance at city hall. The conclusion is about inability to break even, not just reduced profits.
Strategy
To strengthen this argument, we need information that either: (1) confirms the vendor's sales performance would be similar or worse at the art museum compared to city hall, (2) shows the gap between needed sales (25/hour) and likely sales is even bigger than thought, or (3) provides reasons why the vendor's current 15/hour performance represents their realistic ceiling.
'There is currently no license fee for operating a pretzel stand outside city hall.' This doesn't strengthen the vendor's argument about the art museum. While it explains why the vendor might be doing okay at city hall, it doesn't provide any information about whether they could succeed at the art museum. The argument already assumes the city hall situation is different - we need information that specifically relates to the art museum location's viability.
'Pretzel vendors who operate stands outside the art museum were making a profit before the imposition of the new license fee.' This actually weakens the vendor's argument rather than strengthening it. If other vendors were profitable before the fee increase, this suggests the art museum location has good sales potential. The vendor's argument depends on the location being fundamentally challenging for their sales level.
'The number of pretzel stands outside the art museum is no greater than the number of pretzel stands now outside city hall.' This information about competition levels doesn't directly strengthen the vendor's argument. Even if competition is similar, we still don't know whether the vendor can achieve the needed \(\mathrm{25\ pretzels/hour}\) at the art museum location. Competition is just one factor among many.
'People who buy pretzels at pretzel stands are most likely to do so during the hours at which the art museum is open to the public.' This information is neutral or potentially positive for the art museum location. It suggests that pretzel sales align well with museum operating hours, which doesn't support the vendor's claim that they cannot break even there.
'Fewer people passing the art museum than passing city hall are likely to buy pretzels.' This strongly supports the vendor's argument by providing a concrete reason why their sales would be lower at the art museum than at city hall. If fewer people at the art museum are likely to buy pretzels, then the vendor's current performance of \(\mathrm{15/hour}\) would likely drop even further, making the required \(\mathrm{25/hour}\) even more unattainable. This widens the gap between what's needed and what's achievable, directly strengthening the conclusion.