Top Law Schools

"In a mature tourist market such as Bellaria there are only two ways hotel owners can increase profits: by building more rooms or by improving what is already there. Rigid-land use laws in Bellaria rule out construction of new hotels or, indeed, any expansion of hotel capacity. It follows that hotel owners cannot increase their profits in Bellaria since Bellarian hotels_____________________."

Which one of the following logically completes the argument?
A. are already operating at an occupancy rate approaching 100-percent year-round
D. already provide a level of luxury that is at the limits of what even wealthy patrons are prepared to pay for
E. have shifted from serving mainly Bellarian tourists to serving foreign tourists traveling in organized groups

So I was stuck between these 3 choices and picked A. Are A and E wrong because the facts of the stimulus don't let us draw these conclusions? This question sucks.

I think the answer is D.

There are only 2 ways for the company to make a profit. Option A, building more rooms/hotels, is not feasible because it is ruled out by the premise in the argument (strict regulation.) Answer D makes option B (improving what's already there) not possible. If it's already basically perfect (up to what rich people will pay) then there can't be any improvement. This effectively rules out both options and meets the requirement that the hotel owner cannot make a profit.

yep i agree D is the answer

when you get questions that say things like 'only two ways' or have the statement 'either___ or ___' pay really close attention to that part because 99% of the time they will ask you something having to do with that statement

hope this helps

-g