Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 21:33

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 53
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 811 [2] , given: 0

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2012, 15:57
2
KUDOS
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

87% (02:31) correct 13% (01:58) wrong based on 1673 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 51
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Followers: 268

Kudos [?]: 316 [8] , given: 4

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 14:06
8
KUDOS
Expert's post
Qassam wrote:
It is a bit odd to see that the right answer in a "strengthener" question attacks a premise! the new airport was supposed to be an "attractive alternative" as mentioned in the stimulus. Are you sure of the source of this question?

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

Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 81
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 09-30-2012
GPA: 3.08
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 40 [2] , given: 8

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2012, 03:53
2
KUDOS
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
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 52 [1] , given: 22

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2012, 02:06
1
KUDOS
Given:
Greentown airport is clogged and hence planes are delayed.
Reduction of 10% in the number of scheduled flights at Greentown airport -> Delays avoided

If Hevelia airstrip is upgraded and expanded would take away 20% passengers load from Greentown airport.

(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. - Its already mentioned in the passage that the Hevelia has to be upgraded and expanded. Does not fill in the gap between the premise and conclusion - Incorrect
(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. - Hevelia should be able to take away the load from Greentown not by being attractive but by functional - Irrelevant - Incorrect
(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. - Out of Scope - Incorrect
(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(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. - Greentown serves as a hub for many airlines whose passengers wait for their next connectiving flights. Hence most of the scheduled flights are interconnected. Taking away 20% passenger load away would create unnecessary hardship for the passengers who wait for other flights - Correct
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 81
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 09-30-2012
GPA: 3.08
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 40 [1] , given: 8

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2012, 07:20
1
KUDOS
sidhu09 wrote:
Given:
Greentown airport is clogged and hence planes are delayed.
Reduction of 10% in the number of scheduled flights at Greentown airport -> Delays avoided

If Hevelia airstrip is upgraded and expanded would take away 20% passengers load from Greentown airport.

(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. - Its already mentioned in the passage that the Hevelia has to be upgraded and expanded. Does not fill in the gap between the premise and conclusion - Incorrect
(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. - Hevelia should be able to take away the load from Greentown not by being attractive but by functional - Irrelevant - Incorrect
(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. - Out of Scope - Incorrect
(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(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. - Greentown serves as a hub for many airlines whose passengers wait for their next connectiving flights. Hence most of the scheduled flights are interconnected. Taking away 20% passenger load away would create unnecessary hardship for the passengers who wait for other flights - Correct

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
Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 3

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2014, 09:51
1
KUDOS
swati007 wrote:

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.the highways are part of turning Helvetia into a full-service airport, so this does nothing to strengthen the argument

(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.The reason behind which this alternative could be more attractive could involve factors besides less delays (e.g. proximity to the center of the city). Also, just because it is MORE attractive to MANY passengers doesn't mean that it encompasses more than 20% of the passengers described in the stimulus.

(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. This does not directly address what it would due to end delays at Greentown

(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs.This has nothing to do with delays at Greentown Airport

(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.This strengthens the argument the most. All the upgrade of the Helvetia airport claims to do is become a more attractive alternative to passengers. It does not claim to become attractive to these airlines

[Reveal] Spoiler:
E
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 342
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 92 [1] , given: 25

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2016, 07:59
1
KUDOS
MarkSullivan wrote:
Qassam wrote:
It is a bit odd to see that the right answer in a "strengthener" question attacks a premise! the new airport was supposed to be an "attractive alternative" as mentioned in the stimulus. Are you sure of the source of this question?

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

That makes sense. The airlines that are using Greentown as a regional hub are probably unlikely to move their flights to the new airport. Imagine if United uses DIA as a regional hub with 1,000 flights in and out per day, they can't simply divert some of their flights to a different airport because the connection flights will also have to change, which means other flights that feed into the connection flights will also have to be altered. All these changes would cause a mess.
Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 563
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 75

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2012, 20:53
(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.

people will continue to land at Greentown and will find it uneasy to catch the different flights , out of which many will be taking off from the other airport, so the congestion will be same and increase hassle for the passengers.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Manager
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 124
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 4

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2012, 22:53
Can someone please explain why C does not make sense or out of scope - Doesn't increase in commercial and residential development mean that possibly more people taking flights and so more demand for flights and hence flight delay does not get any better.

How is this choice out of scope?
Senior Manager
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 329
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 235 [0], given: 27

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2012, 09:38
teal wrote:
Can someone please explain why C does not make sense or out of scope - Doesn't increase in commercial and residential development mean that possibly more people taking flights and so more demand for flights and hence flight delay does not get any better.

How is this choice out of scope?

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

Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 27
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 09:33
It is a bit odd to see that the right answer in a "strengthener" question attacks a premise! the new airport was supposed to be an "attractive alternative" as mentioned in the stimulus. Are you sure of the source of this question?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2013, 15:56
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2013
Posts: 34
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2013, 07:19
MarkSullivan wrote:
(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!

What is not clear to me is how to interpret E that it won't be a good option for the airlines? It seems to suggest that the plan would reduce "congestion".
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 85
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 15

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2013, 02:34

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.
_________________

Kudos always encourages me

Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 190
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 72

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2014, 06:08
What is the conclusion of the argument?
Concl: "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"
OR
Concl: "experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown."

Finding conclusion is imp Strengthen/Weaken/Assumption questions?????

Rrsnathan.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2015, 14:29
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Current Student
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Posts: 55
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 362

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2015, 00:15
betterscore wrote:
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.

The reason E is tempting is because its a hub ...but that should be a strong reason why people should be able to catch all their connecting flights at a different location..as they have no business being in Greentown!
Of the lot 'B' is a good contender.
Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2015
Posts: 4
GMAT 1: 420 Q31 V19
GMAT 2: 430 Q29 V20
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 18

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2016, 21:49
Let me try dump it down :
The argument - 10% reduction in # of flights will reduce delays in G airport. H is alternative for 25% passengers using G. Expert says H alternative is not good.
Justify expert's position.

My goal ( correct answer) is to find sth that says that G will be still used even with H as alternative.

E - says that passengers are inside G airport already and connecting to flights within G. They do not have to get out of G airport at all ( so they do not use H at all). So, G will have these passengers who are not going to H. H will not be alternative and that support expert position.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 374
Schools: Schulich '16
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 4

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2016, 21:59
E only makes sense..

rest all are irrelevant to the argument
VP
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1401
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 812

Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2016, 00:10
using elimination i choose e and correct but

i do not why e is right

if old airport is used as hub, why new airport can not be used as a hub to take other flights. e should say, new airport can not be used as a hub.

pls, explain . this is official question and should be studied carefully
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled   [#permalink] 04 Jul 2016, 00:10

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 A recent report determined that although only 10 percent of 5 28 Nov 2013, 03:13
Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled 1 31 Oct 2012, 21:41
96 Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette 36 15 Jul 2008, 08:20
Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette 7 12 Jul 2007, 10:31
Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette 4 30 Jun 2007, 08:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by