Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided. Hevelia airstrip, 40 miles away, would, if upgraded and expanded, be an attractive alternative for fully 20 percent of the passengers using Greentown airport. Nevertheless, experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the experts' position?

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways.

(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown.

(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development.

(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs.

(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations.

I couldn't get why E is the right answer But looking at thee other four options i could very easily rule them out.
So E

That is your assumption ! not given in the passage! we cannot say this.
Taking away 20% passenger load away would create unnecessary hardship for the passengers who wait for other flights

Well what does the main conclusion say --->

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided

We are concerned only about the delays and not anything else , with C both possibilities arise commercial and residential dev could mean more delays or less delays depending on how the construction is done, if the construction is efficient one might actually reduce delays. Hence this option is Out of scope or at the best Neutral
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

This is from OG 13 – #22 in the CR section.

This is framed as a Strengthen question, but it's actually best to think of it as a Weaken!

Note that the argument is deconstructed as

- We need a 10% reduction to help with delays.
- Expanding a nearby airport could make that airport attractive for up to 20% of the passengers.

Then the "experts" basically say "this plan won't work". Since we're asked to justify the experts' opinion, we could think of this as weakening the unstated conclusion "this plan will work."

(E) does not attack a premise. Rather, it basically gives a reason for why switching to the alternative airport won't be a good option for the airlines. The premise states that switch would be appealing to the passengers. Well, if it's appealing to the passengers, but the airlines have a reason not to do it, that weakens the claim that the plan will work!

Hope that helps!

Mark
_________________

Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manhattan GMAT: World-Renowned 99th Percentile Instructors & The Most Comprehensive Curriculum