Theatergoer: In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Theatergoer: In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then. Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales. That claim is false, however, since according to Megaplex's own sales figures, Megaplex sold five percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the theatergoer's argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In January of last year, the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then. |
|
| Now Megaplex is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales. |
|
| That claim is false, however, since according to Megaplex's own sales figures, Megaplex sold five percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year. |
|
Argument Flow:
The theatergoer presents a simple contradiction argument. After explaining Megaplex's oil switch and their claim that it hurt sales, the theatergoer directly challenges this claim by pointing to contradictory sales data that shows an increase rather than a decrease.
Main Conclusion:
Megaplex's claim that switching to canola oil hurt popcorn sales is false.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses direct contradiction logic: if Megaplex claims sales went down due to the oil change, but the actual sales data shows sales went up 5%, then Megaplex's claim must be wrong. The theatergoer treats the 5% increase as definitive proof that the oil change didn't hurt sales.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the theatergoer's conclusion that Megaplex's claim is false
Precision of Claims
The theatergoer's argument relies on a simple comparison: 5% more popcorn sold last year vs previous year. But this comparison might be missing crucial context about what would have happened without the oil change, or other factors affecting sales
Strategy
To weaken the theatergoer's argument, we need to show that even though sales went up 5%, this doesn't prove the oil change didn't hurt sales. We can do this by showing that sales would have been even higher without the change, or that other factors boosted sales despite the oil change hurting them, or that the timing/measurement doesn't actually reflect the impact of the oil change
This choice tells us that Megaplex publicized the health benefits when switching to canola oil. If anything, this would suggest that the publicity might have helped sales, making the 5% increase less surprising. This doesn't weaken the theatergoer's argument that the oil change didn't hurt sales - it might even strengthen it by providing another reason why sales went up.
Information about Megaplex making more money on food/beverages than tickets is irrelevant to whether the oil change specifically hurt popcorn sales. This is about their general business model, not about the impact of the oil change on sales volume. This doesn't affect the theatergoer's reasoning at all.
A survey showing that few customers said the change affected their buying habits actually supports the theatergoer's position. If customers themselves report that the oil change didn't affect their purchases, this reinforces the argument that Megaplex's claim is false. This strengthens rather than weakens the theatergoer's argument.
Learning that total food/beverage sales increased by less than 5% doesn't significantly impact the argument. The theatergoer is specifically focused on popcorn sales, which increased by exactly 5%. This information about other items doesn't directly challenge the reasoning about whether the oil change hurt popcorn sales specifically.
This is the correct answer because it fundamentally undermines the theatergoer's reasoning. If attendance increased by more than 20%, we would naturally expect popcorn sales to increase by roughly the same percentage, assuming buying patterns remained constant. The fact that popcorn sales only increased 5% despite 20% more potential customers suggests that per-customer popcorn purchases actually declined significantly. This supports Megaplex's claim that the oil change hurt sales, even though absolute sales numbers went up due to the much higher attendance.