I answered this question correct the first time around, and then when completing the blind review I changed my answer and got it incorrect. This question is very tricky when reading it for the first time. I changed my answer because I could not logically conclude why the average length of stay remaining unchanged would support the authors hypothesis. I now realize that if length of stay has no correlation, then a valid reason to there being higher restaurant revenues would be that visitors are sharing passes.

A) Other tourist attraction opening- would weaken argument bc would explain the rise in restaurant revenues and not attraction

B) Making more frequent trips than in previous years- would weaken argument bc this would mean they are not sharing passes

C) Hotel and meal prices have risen- would weaken argument bc directly correlates with increased revenues not based on sharing passes

D) Average length of stay remained unchanged- would support argument bc people most likely sharing passes

E) Each pass contains a photograph- would weaken argument bc this would causes less people to share a pass

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."