PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 10
Sales manager: Last year the total number of(97 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AThe company's restaurants(18 more words not shown)
- BPrior to last(11 more words not shown)
- CThose of the(19 more words not shown)
- DSales of the(12 more words not shown)
- EMost of the(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Selling more meals sounds encouraging, but it doesn't settle every question about the business. If ingredients become more expensive while menu prices stay fixed, a restaurant could sell more and earn less. The sales manager, though, makes a different claim: people must find the meals desirable.
Not necessarily. A hungry traveler might buy a disappointing airport sandwich because nothing else is open. Sales can reflect limited options, not just enthusiasm for the food.
The accountant then points out that every restaurant operating in both years sold fewer meals. That is an important correction to the picture suggested by rising company-wide sales. New locations could make the total rise while the continuing restaurants decline.
But the accountant's conclusion still goes too far. Fewer purchases don't automatically mean people want the food less. What if they have less money? Someone could still want the same burrito and stop buying it to cut spending.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the accountant, so that last gap is our target. I'd look for another reason for the decline at the continuing restaurants—especially a loss of customers' spending money. We can accept the sales decrease and question the explanation.
Working the answers
- A
Removing dishes doesn't establish an alternative to declining desirability. If those were dishes customers wanted, taking them off the menu could make the remaining selection less appealing. We aren't told whether they were popular, so A doesn't prove that story either. It gives a menu change without showing that the accountant's explanation is mistaken.
- B
An earlier downward trend doesn't explain the cause of last year's decline at the continuing restaurants. It might itself reflect declining appeal or some other factor. Extending the sales history, without explaining it, doesn't supply a competing reason for the specific decrease the accountant cites.
- C
This concerns restaurants that increased sales. The accountant's evidence concerns those operating in both years, all of which decreased sales. Showing that some other restaurants avoided large discounts doesn't explain why the continuing group lost sales. It also doesn't establish that demand at those locations changed for reasons other than desirability.
- D
We need to explain the decline at the continuing restaurants, not identify which meal contributed little to the company's overall increase. Knowing that the most expensive meal wasn't a major source of growth doesn't tell us why customers bought fewer meals at the locations in question.
- ECorrect
Most of the continuing restaurants are in areas where residents' incomes fell severely. That gives us the alternative explanation we predicted. People could still find the meals desirable while buying less because they have less money available.
The match to the relevant group matters: E concerns the restaurants whose falling sales support the accountant's conclusion. It doesn't have to explain every lost sale or prove that desirability never changed. It makes the inference from fewer sales to diminished desirability much less secure.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.