medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city pass for museums was introduced to encourage tourism. The pass offered unlimited entry to 10 major museums for a single flat fee. Surprisingly, during the year the pass was introduced, total revenue for the 10 museums decreased, even though the total number of museum visits increased.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the apparent discrepancy described above?
- Because the flat fee was priced below what individual tickets to even three of the museums would have cost, pass holders effectively paid far less per visit than ticket buyers had.
- The city's tourism bureau chose to devote a sizable share of its annual operating budget to advertising the newly launched flat-fee museum pass to prospective visitors.
- Visitors who held the pass typically lingered for a noticeably shorter period of time inside each of the museums than did patrons who had purchased a single-entry admission ticket.
- Two of the ten participating museums happened to mount prominent, heavily publicized special exhibitions during the very same year that the discounted city pass was first offered.
- Roughly the same total number of out-of-town tourists came to visit the city during the year of the pass as had come during the year immediately before its introduction.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ