Video Explanation

Text Explanation

The statement by the front office of the baseball franchise seems, on the surface, not to take the basic facts into account.  If we want to strengthen this position, there must be some alternate explanation for the drop in attendance. 

Part of strengthening the franchise's position would be weakening the original position: namely, that the team's poor play explains the drop in attendance. 

(C) is the credited answer.  If other minor league teams also experience a drop this week, there must be something global in this market affecting all teams.  We don't know what this factor is, but it's something that touches all teams, not just those that played badly last week.  This provides a cogent alternative explanation, even though we don't know the specific nature of the factor causing the drop in attendance. 

Both (A) & (D) strengthen the original position, namely, that the team's poor play explains the drop in attendance.  In order to strengthen the baseball franchise's position, we have to weaken this original position. 

Choice (B) essentially accuses the baseball franchise of lying, or at least bluffing, which hardly strengthens their position. 

Choice (E) simply adds to the paradox: if the closest MLB team is far away and folks typically don't go there, then there would be more demand for the local minor league baseball.  Given that demand, a drop in attendance doesn't make as much sense.  This choice adds to the confusion without explaining anything.