12bhang wrote:
Mall owner: Our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely making a profit. We cannot raise rents because of unacceptably high risk of losing our tenants. On the other hand,a mall that is fully occupied costs as much to run as one with a rental space here and a rental space there free. Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenants.
Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument:
A) The mall's operating costs could be cut by consolidating currently rented spaces in such a way that an entire wing of the mall could be closed up.
b)The mall is located in a geographic area where the costs for air conditioning in the summers far exceed the cost of heating during the mild winters.
C)The mall's occupancy rate though low, has been relatively stable during the last few years.
D)The mall lost tenants as a result of each of the two drastic rent increases that have occured here.
E)None of the established tenants is likely to need additional floor space in the near future.
The conclusion of the argument is that to increase profits, the mall should sign up new tenants.
We must find something that says that even after the addition of new tenants, the profits will not go up.
However, after scanning the answer choices, I could not find any which could weaken this conclusion. However, choice A, an alternate means to achieving this goal is the correct answer.
Could you explain why this is so? Clearly this is not a causal argument
Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument:
A) The mall's operating costs could be cut by consolidating currently rented spaces in such a way that an entire wing of the mall could be closed up.
b)The mall is located in a geographic area where the costs for air conditioning in the summers far exceed the cost of heating during the mild winters.
C)The mall's occupancy rate though low, has been relatively stable during the last few years.
D)The mall lost tenants as a result of each of the two drastic rent increases that have occured here.
E)None of the established tenants is likely to need additional floor space in the near future.
The conclusion of the argument is that to increase profits, the mall should sign up new tenants.
We must find something that says that even after the addition of new tenants, the profits will not go up.
However, after scanning the answer choices, I could not find any which could weaken this conclusion. However, choice A, an alternate means to achieving this goal is the correct answer.
Could you explain why this is so? Clearly this is not a causal argument
Hi,
Narenn has very aptly explained the reason why choice A is the answer. The keyword here is "must" - the conclusion says that there is only way to increase profits i.e. by signing up new tenants. Now, in this case. anything that suggests another way to increase profits would be valid weakener. Option A does the same by focusing on reduction of costs. Another way to weaken is by suggesting a way to increase revenues without signing up new tenants.
The key to solving all CR questions is the ability to fully understand the conclusion of the argument. If you rejected option A because it is presenting an alternate way to achieve the result and the argument is not causal, then you are depending too much on frameworks and rules. You need to think on your feet. Think smartly. Think what exactly the conclusion is saying. The most important word here was "must" and if you had grasped that, the question of rejecting option A would not have arisen.
If the conclusion had been:
We can increase profits by signing up new tenants.
In such a case, option A would not be the correct answer, as my article on Alternate cause explains.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Chiranjeev