During the exam, A just seemed right, but during BR, I am having a ton of time justifying it. I'd also like some further analysis on answer C.
The government increased the minimum wage. The minimum wage increases the museum's operating expenses, which now are less than the revenues (so the museum is profitable). Thus, the museum will either raise admission fees or decrease services; these hurt the museum going people.
What I am looking for: I couldn't think of a good necessary assumption. All I could think of was raising admission fees or decreasing services is bad for museum goers. I kept thinking to myself "no shit."
Answer A: I was turned off by this due to the word "significantly," but the other answer choices were clearly incorrect. If it is not true that some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage, then what does this mean? I take it to mean that the employees are either paid slightly higher than minimum wage, at minimum wage, or below minimum wage. How does this actually wreck the argument?
Answer B: What if the revenue fluctuated? It doesn't matter.
Answer C: I am sure some are, but so what? If you negate this: no one is paid more than the current minimum wage, then this might strengthen the argument since it would suggest that the increase in the minimum wage is going to impact the operating expenses further.
Answer
So what about the annual number of visitors?
Answer E: So what?
EDIT: I initially mistyped the part of the summary dealing with profit.
Comments
Hope this helps!