The traffic near the hockey stadium has reduced by 30% as the marketing campaign began for the new metro line connecting the central bus station and the hockey stadium. Simultaneously, there has been an equivalent rise in the number of persons riding public buses to the games. Without a doubt, the marketing campaign has been successful in convincing people to leave their cars at home and use public transportation to visit the games.

The traffic near the hockey stadium has reduced by 30% as the marketing campaign began for the new metro line connecting the central bus station and the hockey stadium. Simultaneously, there has been an equivalent rise in the number of persons riding public buses to the games. Without a doubt, the marketing campaign has been successful in convincing people to leave their cars at home and use public transportation to visit the games.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

1. Since the marketing campaign began, the cost of public transport fares to the stadium has risen dramatically.
2. As part of the marketing campaign, high-profile occupants of luxury suites at the stadium have been seen using the public transport to games.
3. Since the marketing campaign began, the cost of parking a car in the lots surrounding the stadium has risen to an amount equivalent to thirty times the old cost of a bus ticket to the stadium, which itself has been reduced by half during the same period.
4. The number of public transport available to the stadium is exactly the same both before and after the marketing campaign.
5. Surveys show that the customer satisfaction of public transport riders to the stadium has not increased since the start of the marketing campaign.

OA: C

Summary of the argument: The argument states that as the result of a marketing campaign of the new metro line has reduced the traffic around the stadium by 30%. It concludes that marketing campaigns are the main reason for the reduction in traffic. The conclusion should be weakened to weaken the argument.

1. Increase in public transport should reduce the ridership which is opposite of the argument.  Hence eliminated.
2. We don’t know whether the high profile occupants of the luxury suits constitute the majority of the visitors to the stadium to make the difference. Hence eliminated.
3. This weakens the argument that cost seems to be the reason auto traffic has reduced and people are using public transport more, not the marketing campaign. Hence, this is the right answer.
4. It does not tell anything about the reduction in the traffic. Hence eliminated.
5. Customer satisfaction is irrelevant for the argument. Hence eliminated.

X