gdk800 wrote:
Sorry for being late. Here are the OAs to the posted questions.
1) At present Satellex Radio provides only music stations. However, many Satellex subscribers listen to talk radio stations as well, and they would prefer that Satellex offered talk radio as well. Moreover, subscribers to radio services that provide talk radio usually subscribe for longer periods of time than those who subscribe to music-only services. Therefore, if Satellex added talk radio stations, its profi
ts would increase.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
(A) Satellex's large subscriber base would appeal to talk radio hosts, making it easy for Satellex to hire quality talent for its talk radio stations.
(B) Most talk radio hosts broadcast on advertiser-supported radio stations that listeners can access without paying a subscription fee.
(C) Satellex's costs would rise by adding several talk-radio stations, while many of the listeners who want talk radio are already Satellex subscribers.
(D) Talk radio listeners generally spend more time on a single radio station than do listeners to music radio.
(E) If Satellex added talk radio stations, many of Satellex's music radio hosts would switch to talk-radio stations, making the music stations less appealing.
OA is C
Explanation: The question plays with classic equation Profit = Revenue - Expenses
When the profit is increasing that means the revenue is higher than expenses. For that to happen, the subscriber base must increase for Satellex. But since most members willing to listen to Talk shows are already members, chances are less that would happen. Option C says costs (expenses) would rise thus it weakens the conclusion.
Where are these explanations from? This one seems to miss the whole point of the question.
Note that this is not a standard "Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument" question. Not only do we need to find a legitimate criticism of the argument, but the correct answer must also be something "the argument ...
gives reason to believe... is likely". So while B might weaken the argument, it is not the correct answer, since there is nothing in the argument that should lead us to believe that B is likely to be true. C, on the other hand, not only weakens the argument, but is also suggested in the passage; in the passage we learn that those who want talk radio are already subscribers.
To answer this question correctly, you must read it very carefully; if you assume it's a standard 'weaken' question, you won't be applying the correct criteria in choosing your answer, and you might easily think the answer is B. The explanation quoted above seems to miss that point altogether, and it's the key to the whole question.
gdk800 wrote:
2) Zuksha International Airport was once the busiest airport in the region, but two major airlines have relocated to nearby airports, reducing the number of flights in and out of Zuksha by more than half. The gates at Zuksha were built more than thirty years ago and cannot accommodate the largest modern aircraft. In an effort to bring in more business, Zuksha officials plan to build dozens of gates to accommodate modern aircraft and offer reduced-rate leases to airlines willing to make long-term commitments.
Which of the following, if true, most threatens the plan's likelihood of success?
(A) Most of the airlines operating out of nearby airports have long-term leases on gates at the other airports.
(B) The existing gates at Zuksha rent at rates that are, on average, much lower than the proposed rates for the new gates to be built there.
(C) Because of highway congestion and changing development patterns that make Zuksha inconvenient to access, airline customers prefer to depart from other airports.
(D) Of the 18 airlines that serve Zuksha or nearby airports, none serve more than one airport in the area.
(E) If the proposed addition is completed, Zuksha will be the largest airport, as measured both by gates and square footage, in the region.
OA is C
Explanation: Only A & C are contenders. But the thing which makes A a looser is long-term leases. There is no means to know when those long-term contracts are ending so we can't pick this option. Even after providing new gates and long-term leases contracts, the one thing which threatens the plan is unwillingness of customers to come to Zuksha because of congestion & inconvenience.
Hope this helps.
Again, I wonder where the explanation is from. When I read answer choice C, it reminds me of the situation in Europe: there are tons of inconveniently located airports, but customers still use them. Most of the time, customers don't have much choice of where they fly to and from. In this question, if entire airlines transfer their business to Zuksha International, that is likely to be true here as well; why shouldn't we expect Zushkaians to put up with inconveniently located airports if people do that all the time in real life? We have no way to answer that question here, and there's simply no way to evaluate the importance of the concerns raised by answer C without bringing a lot of assumptions to the question. Bearing in mind, though, that it is the airlines (and not the customers) who will be deciding where the airplanes fly to and from, and that the airlines are likely to be primarily concerned with costs, C doesn't seem to be a factor that is likely to be all that important. So I don't think it's a good answer here, though I'd choose it if it was the only reasonable answer choice.
That's not the case, however. A offers a far more compelling reason to doubt the likelihood of the plan's success, at least in the short term. The plan is entirely predicated on enticing airlines into signing reduced rate long-term leases. If airlines have long and unbreakable leases elsewhere, those airlines might not be able to take advantage of the reduced cost leases at Zuksha International, at least not before their current leases expire. Since the leasing arrangements are a central feature of the plan, if we have reason to expect airlines won't sign leases, we have reason to doubt the plan will work. So to me, A seems to have a far more direct bearing on the question, and seems to be a much better answer than C.
All that said, this is one of those nebulous prep company CR questions which has two potentially correct answers, and getting the answer right is more a test of whether you can guess what the question designer was thinking than whether you can answer real GMAT CR questions successfully.
close
22 Oct 2010, 11:27
59%
(01:57)
wrong 
