PT82.S4.Q21 - Restaurant critic: Most people agree that the food

EveryCookCanGovern

I chose (E). I had thought that the discrepancy was how is it that a restaurant with worse food could be more popular. Assuming this is the discrepancy, would (E) not justify the conclusion? We are told Traintrack has a better location and this brings in customers, but there is still a gap: how is better location enough to compensate for having worse food? (E) tells how, food is irrelevant to the popularity of a restaurant. But from what I got from the explanation is that the actual discrepancy the question wants us to focus on is how is it that a more popular restaurant offers worse food? Did I just miss what the question was truly asking for?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

Sandwichelle

I quickly looked at the question and chose (B) because I thought the convenient location was the most important part, then I watched the explanation and I was still confused until the end. What JY explained was that the fact that the location was so good, the restaurant maintained it's popularity even though the food was inferior. The correct answer is a general premise about business that says, if they don't need to improve, they wont. Like leave well enough alone, so to speak. So it clicked for me to think, "OH, they're busy and successful without trying to strive to improve their food, so why would they?" I hope this helps. Its a tricky question.