TheaterGoer : In January of last year the Megaplex chain of movie theaters started popping its popcorn in canola oil,...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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 5% 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 5% more popcorn last year than in the previous year. |
|
Argument Flow:
TheaterGoer presents a contradiction argument: Megaplex claims the oil change hurt sales, but their own numbers show sales actually increased, so their claim must be false.
Main Conclusion:
Megaplex's claim that switching to canola oil hurt popcorn sales is false.
Logical Structure:
The evidence (\(5\%\) sales increase) directly contradicts the claim (sales were hurt), so the claim must be wrong. It's a simple contradiction-based argument using Megaplex's own data against them.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the TheaterGoer's conclusion that Megaplex's claim is false
Precision of Claims
The TheaterGoer's argument relies on a simple quantity comparison: \(5\%\) more popcorn sold last year vs previous year. But this comparison assumes all other factors remained equal.
Strategy
Look for scenarios that show why the \(5\%\) increase doesn't actually prove that the oil change didn't hurt sales. We need to find reasons why sales could have increased despite the oil change causing problems, or why the comparison isn't fair.
This tells us that total refreshment sales increased by less than 5%. Since popcorn sales increased by exactly 5%, this would mean other refreshments either stayed flat or declined slightly. However, this doesn't weaken the TheaterGoer's argument about popcorn specifically. The argument is focused on whether the oil change hurt popcorn sales, and a 5% increase in popcorn sales still seems to contradict Megaplex's claim, regardless of what happened to other refreshments.
This gives us information about Megaplex's profit margins - they make more money on concessions than tickets. While this explains why Megaplex cares about popcorn sales, it doesn't address whether the 5% increase actually disproves their claim that the oil change hurt sales. This is irrelevant to the logic of the TheaterGoer's argument.
Customer preference for coconut oil taste supports Megaplex's position that the change hurt sales, but it doesn't weaken the TheaterGoer's argument. The TheaterGoer is using actual sales figures (5% increase) as evidence, and customer preference doesn't explain away those numbers. We still need to explain how sales could increase despite customer preference for the old oil.
This is the key piece that destroys the TheaterGoer's reasoning. If attendance increased by more than 20%, we'd expect popcorn sales to increase proportionally - potentially by 20% or more. Instead, sales only increased by 5%, meaning per-capita popcorn purchases actually declined significantly. This shows the oil change did hurt sales appeal, just as Megaplex claimed. The 5% overall increase masks what was actually a substantial decline in popcorn attractiveness relative to the customer base.
A 10% increase the year before last gives us historical context but doesn't impact the logic of comparing last year to the previous year. Whether sales grew 10% two years ago doesn't change the fact that they grew 5% after the oil switch. This doesn't weaken the argument that uses the 5% increase as evidence against Megaplex's claim.