The Starbeans cafe has recently hired a new manager. The manager, within a few days of joining, made some drastic changes as a result of which the number of people visiting Starbeans everyday fell by almost 40%. However the revenue during this same period almost doubled.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain how the revenues of Starbeans increased despite the falling footfalls?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowSee 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.
Official Explanation
Foot traffic fell ~40%
Revenue nearly doubled
So we’re trying to explain a paradox: fewer people came, but total sales went up.
This is a "Resolve the Paradox" question. Your task: find the answer choice that explains how both facts can be true at the same time.
🔍 Step-by-Step Breakdown of Answer Choices:
(A) "The manager appointed a new coffee bean supplier who charges much lower rates..."
This impacts costs, not revenue.
Trap: many test takers confuse profit with revenue.
But the stimulus explicitly mentions revenue, not profits. So this is out of scope.
→ (A)
(B) "The manager changed the interior... making the seats much more comfortable..."
This could explain customer satisfaction or ambiance.
But the stimulus says visits dropped by 40%, so we can’t credit ambiance for revenue increase.
This doesn’t explain why fewer people spent more.
→ (B)
(C) "The manager’s salary is linked to revenue..."
Explains motive, not mechanism.
Even if the manager wants to boost revenue, how did he do it?…
Read the full explanation
Sign in for free to see the complete step-by-step solution to this question.
Easy one. Footfalls down but revenue up = paying more per visit. D is the only one that does that.
yeah once you see the gap between traffic and revenue it's pretty much locked in
I almost picked E because cutting salary cost by half sounds like it would help. then I remembered revenue isn't the same as profit lol. classic trap.
same trap here. cost savings make the business more profitable but the revenue line itself doesn't move. took me a second too
wait why is A wrong? lower bean rates = more money kept right?
that saves money on the cost side, doesn't bring in more revenue. question is specifically about revenue climbing while foot traffic dropped
the "in some cases even doubling" bit in D is what sold me. fewer people but each one spending way more can easily double the total. pretty straightforward for a low-diff question
What it tests
Whether you can draw a conclusion that must follow from the stated facts.
Common trap
Choosing an option that could be true or is likely true — inference answers must be guaranteed by the passage.