In February of last year, the Cineplex chain of movie theaters began using sunflower oil for popping its popcorn, replacing the less healthy palm oil it had previously used. Now, Cineplex is considering reverting back to palm oil, claiming that the change has negatively impacted popcorn sales. This assertion is incorrect, as Cineplex's own sales data indicates that they sold 7% more popcorn last year compared to the year before.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument made by Cineplex?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Total sales of all snacks at Cineplex’s movie theaters increased by less than 7 percent last year.

Cineplex profits more from concessions than from ticket sales.

Cineplex patrons prefer the flavor of popcorn made with palm oil over that made with sunflower oil.

Correct

Total attendance at Cineplex’s movie theaters was more than 25 percent higher last year than the previous year.

The year before last, Cineplex saw a 12 percent increase in popcorn sales compared to the year before.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

To weaken Cineplex's argument that switching to sunflower oil hurt popcorn sales, we need to find evidence that suggests the increase in popcorn sales is not a strong indicator of customer satisfaction with sunflower oil. Option C states that 'Cineplex patrons prefer the flavor of popcorn made…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

AdvitiyaApr 4, 2025

Great!

ColinSep 24, 2024

thank you very much!

AzharMar 18, 2025

cheers!

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.