In a town containing a tourist attraction, hotel and restaurant revenues each increased more rapidly over the past year than did revenue from the sale of passes to the attraction, which are valid for a full year. This led those in charge of the attraction to hypothesize that visitors were illicitly selling or sharing the passes.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
People in charge of a tourist attraction hypothesize that visitors illegally sold or shared passes to the attraction in the past year. This is because hotel and restaurant revenues increased more than did revenue from the attraction itself.

Notable Assumptions
The people in charge of the tourist attraction assume that the only reason anyone would use the nearby hotels and restaurants is to go to the tourist attraction. In other words, these people believe that there should be a 1:1 correlation in how rapidly revenue rises for the tourist attraction, and how rapidly revenue rises for nearby restaurants and hotels.

A
During the past year other tourist attractions have opened up in the area.
If other tourist attractions opened up in the area, then they’re probably attracting visitors who don’t also visit the tourist attraction in question. This weakens the 1:1 correlation the people talking in the stimulus seem to think must exist.
B
Those possessing passes made more frequent trips to the attraction last year than in previous years.
Revenue for passes didn’t increase at the same rate as hotels and restaurants since people holding passes visited more frequently. They spent money on hotels and restaurants each trip, but not on a tourist attraction pass.
C
While the cost of passes is unchanged since last year, hotel and meal prices have risen.
Hotels and restaurants charge more than they did the year before, while the tourist attraction costs the same. Thus, all things being equal, revenue for the former increased more rapidly than the latter.
D
The local board of tourism reports that the average length of stay for tourists remained unchanged over the past year.
This doesn’t explain why hotel and restaurant revenue would’ve risen more rapidly than tourist attraction revenue. It simply states that one possibly important factor has in fact stayed the same.
E
Each pass contains a photograph of the holder, and during the past year these photographs have usually been checked.
This suggests that selling or sharing the passes wouldn’t work. There must be some other reason why tourist attraction revenue hasn’t risen as rapidly as hotel and restaurant revenue.

11 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

8 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

2 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

2 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

This is a weakening question: Which one of the following, if true, would cast doubt on the experimenters’ conclusion?

Our stimulus begins with a definition of nuclear fusion; nuclear fusion is a process where nuclei fuse and release energy. We then learn that this process creates a by-product; helium-4 gas. Having established this context, we now learn about an experiment involving “heavy” water. I don’t know about you, but I have no idea what “heavy” water is; luckily the LSAT is about our reasoning skills and not chemistry. We learn that the water is contained in a sealed flask within an air-filled chamber, and that after the experiment some Helium-4 was found in the chamber. The people running the experiment concluded that there must have been nuclear fusion that happened. Since this is a weakening question involving a hypothesis, we should look for an alternate hypothesis in the answer choices, an alternate possible explanation for why there was helium-4 in the chamber. Let’s see what we get:

Answer Choice (A) The researcher’s explanation is entirely compatible with this.

Answer Choice (B) But was it fusion that produced the helium-4?

Correct Answer Choice (C) We are told the chamber was air-filled, so we would therefore expect that level of helium-4. This is a much better explanation than that nuclear fusion occurred!

Answer Choice (D) But it was helium-4 they found. If anything this suggests the helium-4 was recently produced which might support the fusion hypothesis.

Answer Choice (E) Cool, but we weren’t told anything about heat; for all we know there was a large release of heat and our experiment runners hypothesis is entirely correct.


Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this