Proponents of airline industry deregulation argued that airl

E,

Its b/w A and E

A)Airlines reinvest all profits by upgrading services and do not spend them in other ways, such as dividend payments.

Just Avoid Extremes
All is too strong a word; nowhere is it mentioned in the argument, that airlines need to invest all the profits into upgrading services

E)The increase in the number of seats available in the airline industry would exceed the number of new passengers shopping for seats in the same period.

this option is supporting the conclusion and is the correct choice. This option implies that the demand would decrease because supply has increased and hence the prices will be lowered

E-gmat I love You!!!!!!!

I used the E-gmat procedure to solve this question. Because I just started learning, i was a little slow at arriving at the answer.

and in this question the assumption I pre- thought was the right one

Answer should be E


Hey Narenn,

Can you please explain OA E.
If available seats are less than seats in demand,price should increase not decrease as seats are less and demand is more.People will be ready to pay for them

Please help me to understand this.

E is the correct answer

Conclusion: airlines should be allowed to set fares as high or low as they please
Premise (Main one): Simple rules of supply and demand, they said, would mean that an expanded industry would then have to compete more vigorously for passengers to fill seats, and fares would, thus, inevitably decline

Argument is trying to say that with increased competition, more seats would be on offer. With more seats available and a desire to get them filled, airline operators would slash the pricing of seats. This price war would lead to price of seats actually declining resulting in customers moving towards an airline offering the best rate.

So, to enable such a scenario, the number of increased seats on offer should be more than number of new people who are vying for the seats.

Hello guys... here is my analysis

Structure
Conclusion: Fares would inevitable decline
Basis. of conclusion (P): Because of an expanded number of Airlines in the market, they would have to compete to fill seats.
P1: attractive PM --> would lead to the formation of new airlines.

Pre-thinking Analysis
The author says that Airlines would have to reduce fares to attract customers because competence will be rough. For this conclusion to be true, he is assuming that
Offer > demand.

Answer choice Analysis
A Airlines reinvest all profits by upgrading services and do not spend them in other ways, such as dividend payments. Irrelevant
Whatever airlines do with their profits doesn't affect the basis of the conclusion

B Only preexisting airlines would profit significantly from market deregulation. OFS
The degree at what a group of airlines would profit as a consequence of market deregulation is not in discussion.

C A free airline market will inevitably lead to a price-setting system based on a proportion of revenues to routes flown. OFS
The way flight fares will be set is out of scope.

D An increase in the number of seats available in the airline industry would necessarily lead to an increased demand for those seats. Inconclusive
+ # of seats (offer) --> + demand... Does it mean that Offer > demand? we don't know, so it is incorrect.

E The increase in the number of seats available in the airline industry would exceed the number of new passengers shopping for seats in the same period. Correct!
Offer > Demand. Alligned with pre-thinking. If we negated the assumption (Demand exceeds offer), there is no reasons why to reduce fares because customers would be fighting for seats and will be willing to pay more. So the conclusion is shattered

Hope my analysis help!

Rumi

Answer should be E. If the demand for seats are more than the increase in seats. Airlines can continue to charge high prices for seats because they know customers would still pay regardless of the price.

Posted from my mobile device

Premise: Proponents of airline industry deregulation argued that airlines should be allowed to set fares as high or low as they please.
Premise: Though they acknowledged that this policy would undoubtedly lead to higher fares in the short term, they predicted that the higher revenues generated would allow the existing airlines to upgrade and even expand their services.
Premise: They also predicted that attractive profit margins would possibly lead to the formation of new airlines.
Premise: Simple rules of supply and demand, they said, would mean that an expanded industry would then have to compete more vigorously for passengers to fill seats, and

Conclusion: fares would, thus, inevitably decline.

- The proponents here assume that at the start of this plan, customers would pay such high fares. If they do not do so, the whole plan fails because then the airlines would not be able to expand their services, no profit margins, and finally no formation of new airlines.
- If the demand won’t be there, then the plan would fail.
Let’s look at the choices:
A. Airlines reinvest all profits by upgrading services and do not spend them in other ways, such as dividend payments.
INCORRECT. How will the fares decline ?

B. Only pre-existing airlines would profit significantly from market deregulation.
INCORRECT. Does not support the conclusion.

C. A free airline market will inevitably lead to a price-setting system based on a proportion of revenues to routes flown.
INCORRECT

D. An increase in the number of seats available in the airline industry would necessarily lead to an increased demand for those seats.
increase in the seats would lead to increased demand. But will the customers buy the seats available or not? Option E affirms it.

E. The increase in the number of seats available in the airline industry would exceed the number of new passengers shopping for seats in the same period.
Negated statement: The increase in the number of seats available in the airline industry would NOT exceed the number of new passengers shopping for seats in the same period.

If this is so then NUMBER OF AVAILABLE SEATS WOULD BE EQUAL TO NUMBER OF PASSENGERS
So there would be no loss of seats. If passengers are not there to buy those seats, then the prices would remain high.
Correct.

This question is little confusing especially option D and E. pretty close but according to me, the difference comes from the fact whether customers are ready to pay for the seats or not?

Chose A, but after carefully reading again, I realized that A is deader than dead

A says Airlines reinvest all profits ...all.. all all all

Airlines do not need to reinvest all ... just some or good enough portion of profit

Posted from my mobile device

Could someone please explain why option D is incorrect? I founded D and E to be extremely close. If option D is negated, doesn't that break down the conclusion?

D is totally wrong .. D says that the expansion of airline seats will bring more competition ... this means that the price will not decline

E says the increase of passengers will fall behind the speed of airline expansion ..this is why airlines will need to lower their prices to attract passengers

Posted from my mobile device

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.