Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I

Question

Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the airline had overbooked the flight. Since I was forced to fly on the next available flight, which did not depart until two hours later, I missed an important business meeting. Even though the flight on which I had a reservation was canceled at the last minute due to bad weather, the airline should still pay me compensation for denying me a seat on the flight.

Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway.

A principle that, if established, justifies Jamie's response to Arnold is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations_____

(A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the flight

(B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather

(C) only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight

(D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were at the original flight is canceled due to bad weather

(E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

First, let's break down the situation...

Arnold had a reservation, but he was denied a seat because the airline overbooked the flight. 
 As a result, he had to take a later flight and missed an important meeting. 
 According to Arnold, the airline should pay compensation for denying him a seat when he had a reservation. The fact that the flight was canceled due to bad weather is irrelevant, because either way the airline screwed up. 
 But according to Jamie, the airline should NOT have to pay because Arnold would have missed his meeting regardless of whether the airline overbooked the flight. So, yes, the airline screwed up, but in the end the overbooking had no impact on the final result (Arnold would have missed the meeting either way). Since the overbooking had no impact, the airline has no obligation to pay.

We need a principle that justifies Jamie's position. This principle is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations_____

This principle would actually support Arnold's point of view. Even if the airline had not overbooked his original flight, he STILL would have been forced to take a later flight. According to (E), Arnold SHOULD receive compensation in this case.

If the airline had NOT overbooked the original, Arnold still would have been forced to take a later flight (because of bad weather). According to Jamie, this is not sufficient for compensation. He should only receive compensation if he would NOT have been forced to take a later flight. This is exactly what (C) is saying, in a confusing way:

If the airline had not overbooked the original, would the passenger have been forced to take a later flight?

1) If yes (i.e. because of bad weather), then no compensation.
2) If no, then compensation.

According to this principle, Arnold should NOT receive compensation because his situation fits with #1 above.

I hope that helps!

eshan429 · Answer

Basically what Jamie says to Arnold is that in this particular case, it's not the airline's fault that Arnold had to take a later flight. However, it can be inferred that if Arnold had missed his flight because of the airline's fault, then the airline would be obligated to compensate.

(B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather ----> Not necessarily. Say, if the passenger is forced to take a later flight because they were late to the airport, the airline shouldn't have to pay. Incorrect

(D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were at the original flight is canceled due to bad weather ----> If the passenger is forced to take a later flight because the weather was bad, it is not the airline's fault. It might be that the flight was booked to capacity or even a bit under capacity but due to bad weather they weren't able to take off. Incorrect

(E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight ----> This just says that even though the airline hadn't overbooked and the passenger had to take a later flight due to some reason (maybe bad weather, technical issues with the plane, someone calling in a bomb threat etc), the airline should have to pay. In case it's not the airline's fault, according to Jamie's argument, they shouldn't have to pay. Incorrect

I was stuck between A & C. I eliminated A as follows:

(A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the flight ----> Seems a bit restrictive. This option says that if a passenger misses the flight, the airline should only compensate in cases when the flight was overbooked. What about the case when let's say the flight wasn't overbooked but the airline didn't call the passenger to tell them that the flight has been preponed by half an hour. Incorrect

Which only leaves C.

Hope that helps.

rishabh16 · Answer

Passenger :
1. Confirmed reservation
2. Denied entry due to overbooking
3. Forced to take later flight , missed meeting .
4. Demands refund even though original flight was cancelled.
Assumption - passenger is demanding refund for the inconvenience caused.

Jamie :
1. Says not morally obliged .
2. This specific case - the inconvenience would have been caused anyway since there was bad weather.

Assumption : since end result was the same , airline not responsible .

Closest answers are A and C .
However A covers the case already stated in the argument .
A : means yes the passenger was forced to take a later flight and that was because of overbooking . But this argument has no bearing on the original flight and it's time of departure. So this option is directly out of the passenger's argument and hence it cannot justify Jamie's reasoning as the question asks .

C : this option on the other hand clearly states that the passenger would not have taken a later flight had the flight was not overbooked. This option implicitly infers that the original flight in this case will depart on time . Therefore this option is actually option A + plus timely departure restriction on original flight .

Hence C is the right answer

good question

, I hope my explanation was clear

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

, I hope my explanation was clear Posted from my mobile device Posted from my mobile device

chesstitans · Answer

this is still a gmat question because it strengthens the responding, or the conclusion from Jamie. This question is probably a LSAT question
In short, Jamie wants to say the airline compensates for its fault (overbooking)
C strengthens the above reason as it establishes the only cause why Arnold has to take another flight later.

My advice is to memorize the pattern first.

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

Thanks  chesstitans  for the explanation!

To post additional questions not already addressed in this thread, feel free to use the  request verbal experts' reply  button.

Huahua1987 · Answer

Here is what I think.

"Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway."

Jamie's premise: Arnold's miss of the meeting is not due to the airline's overbooking.
Jamie's conclusion: Airline is not morally obligated to compensate Arnold.

Principal: THe airline is obligated only if the customer's miss is because of overbooking.

The difference between A and C is:

A - This departures from the two facts (or one inference) in the question. First, Arnold did get rescheduled because of overbooking. However, there is no compensation supported by Jamie; 2nd, Airline may compensate if the cause is not overbooking. But this option says "if the only reason".

C - Better.

C is better because C addresses the stated principal as the above, but in a two-negative way - Arnold will not miss if the airline doesn't not overbook.

I could imagine people may get confused between A and C. The essential difference is that in A, the connection between obligation to pay and airline's overbooking is too absolute and too unique. It doesn't give give other options. After all, overbook can not be the only situation where airline is obligated to pay. A is actually part of C. But C doesn't link to A directly.

Other options:

B - "bad weather" or not doesn't matter here. Arnold can be trapped in other disasters. The question is asking for principal, not scenario. Principal is made to address multiple scenarios.

D - Same as B.

E - This breaks the connection between overbook and flight reschedule. Think about it, if the connection between both is gone, then adding either to Jamie's premise above is meaningless.

push12345 · Answer

Hi GMATNinjaTwo

Could you please elaborate on choices C AND E 
I read explanation above but they are not helping me out

Posted from my mobile device

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

GMATNinja  hi expert, your explanation is really helpful, but I am still a little bit confused. As you said: (1) If yes (i.e. because of bad weather), then no compensation; (2) If no, then compensation. So there still is a possibility of no compensation, but the question stem is "must compensate", so I think it should mention "the original flight would NOT have been cancelled by the bad weather" in the correct answer  .
Could you plz explain further? Thanks in advance.

GMATNinja · Answer

The question stem says that "an airline is morally obligated..." and then (C) proceeds by saying "ONLY if...." So, together, we have, "an airline is morally obligated ONLY if...." The rest of (C) then lays out the circumstances in which an airline IS obligated: when the overbooking is the ONLY reason that the passenger has to take a later flight.

In other words, (C) says that the airline is obligated when overbooking is the ONLY reason for the later flight. This may not address bad weather directly, but bad weather would be an additional reason for a later flight, and consequently, overbooking would not be the ONLY reason. So, the airline would NOT be obligated because overbooking would NOT be the ONLY reason, and (C) is the best answer choice.

I hope that clears things up!

unraveled · Answer

Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the airline had overbooked the flight. Since I was forced to fly on the next available flight, which did not depart until two hours later, I missed an important business meeting. Even though the flight on which I had a reservation was canceled at the last minute due to bad weather, the airline should still pay me compensation for denying me a seat on the flight.

Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway.

A principle that, if established, justifies Jamie's response to Arnold is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations_____

(A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the flight

(B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather

(C) only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight

(D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were at the original flight is canceled due to bad weather

(E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

This is a post attempt operation of my disastrous approach. Keywords highlighted in blue and words in green give direction to passage. Jamie's counter is not as important as Arnold's argument since question stem(most important) goes against it and tries to take the case(in a likely scenario) where Jamie's counter would have agreed to Arnold. But do note that what(reason) makes Jamie's disagree with Arnold. Even with a confirmed reservation, Arnold was denied seat in the earlier flight and it was because airline overbooked tickets. Arnold argues for having been compensated for denying a seat. And this argument is based on him being FORCED to take next flight that for whatever reason lead to missed key business meeting. Finally, this claim by Arnold is valid(as per Arnold) even if the cancellation was done because of bad weather. Therefore, its like Denying a reserved seat ---- forcing to take another flight --- missing a business meeting ---- cancellation of flights because of bad weather. On the other hand, Jamie simply brings the moral point and adding support to her counter by saying the bad weather would have made him miss the meeting anyway. But, here is the key issue between the two arguments that Jamie brings another point of view(morality) and considers only bad weather for justifying it. Not sure but it may also means that Jamie is fine with FORCEFUL taking another flight. However, this would have required us make some assumption, leading to some non-key issue. So, the agreement of the Jamie can only be possible if the two factors - morality(overbooking and forceful taking of another flight in this case) and bad weather - are eliminated. Arrgghh.....

Why did I not see this earlier??!!! There's always some considerations missed by counter argument - here Jamie's. Which one of the choices does that? Only C does. Let me know if i have missed some of the key points OR interpreting something wrong.

QQum · Answer

C would be the correct answer considering that here the flight was cancelled only due to external reasons and as such, the airline should only compensate had they overbooked the flight.

arjun221199 · Answer

can someone please explina how is option C correct? in gmatninja explanation... if they are not forced to board how can we say that they have to be compensated?

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the airline had overbooked the flight. - Background Info. Since I was forced to fly on the next available flight, which did not depart until two hours later, I missed an important business meeting. - Background Info. Even though the flight on which I had a reservation was canceled at the last minute due to bad weather, the airline should still pay me compensation for denying me a seat on the flight. - The flight was canceled eventually, but he still needs compensation for missing his meeting because he feels it was the airline's fault. Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway. - Overbooking or no overbooking, he would have missed the meeting for no fault of the airline as it's a weather problem beyond the airline's control. Seems like Jamie is the airline representative

A principle that, if established, justifies Jamie's response to Arnold is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations_____ So when is the airline morally obligated to compensate? When 1. He has a confirmed booking, and there is no overbooking. 2. He is not pushed to the later flight. In that case, despite the many available seats, the airline would be morally responsible for compensating if he were denied board and not pushed to a later flight. Jamie's argument (which seems like an airline rep.) is that as long as we provide you a seat on the flight you booked or any later, we are not morally obliged to pay you). And, of course, if there is a weather problem, washing off hands is a cakewalk. (A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the flight - No. Jamie rules out that option, which leads to the argument that as long as the airline can provide you a seat on the flight you booked or any flight later, say, 2 hours or so, they are morally obligated to pay. (B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather - No. The airline is not obligated if it were canceled due to bad weather. (C) only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight - Basically, you have a confirmed booking, they have seats, the flight is not canceled, and they deny to fly you. Quite weird. Yes. As per Jamie's logic, that is the only situation; the airline is supposed to pay. (D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were at the original flight is canceled due to bad weather - No. (E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight - No. In Jamie's argument, as long the airline gives you some options, they are not morally obligated.

GMATMMK · Answer

I still dont understand the difference between A and C. Are they not saying the same thing. How are they different? Can anyone explain with examples

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja · Answer

Apologies for our slowness on this!

Yeah, I feel your pain here. So before we dig in, a quick disclaimer: the difference between the two answer choices comes from a subtlety in the language that is so esoteric, it really isn't worth devoting too many brain cells to figuring out the distinction. The agonizing you might do for this question is unlikely to be beneficial for other questions, sadly.

That said... well, let's agonize!

The big difference in meaning comes from the placement of the word "only." (This is almost like a Sentence Correction question! Remember those? No? Well, they were fun while they lasted.)

Here's the relevant clause in (A):
 
Notice that "only" precedes the word "reason." So the idea here is that there is just one reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight -- namely, that the flight is overbooked.

If there had been  some other reason  -- maybe the flight lost the passenger's reservation, maybe an unruly passenger caused the flight to be canceled, etc. -- then the airline would not have been morally obligated to compensation the passenger.

Well, that's pretty silly. Why would the cause of the cancellation matter? Jaime's issue isn't about why the flight was canceled. The issue is whether the passenger actually could have made it to the meeting had she not been booted from the flight. In that sense, all cancellations are kind of equal.

Now check out the relevant clause in (C):
 
The "only" has moved. Now it precedes an entire "if" clause. So it's saying that the one reason an airline is morally obligated to compensation a passenger is IF the passenger wouldn't have been forced to take a later flight.

This one makes sense. Jaime's whole argument is that even if the earlier flight weren't overbooked, the passenger would still miss the meeting because the flight was subsequently cancelled. But if the flight hadn't been cancelled, well, then the passenger, in theory, wouldn't have had to take a later flight and could have made the meeting -- if that flight had not been overbooked.

That's the logic we want. So (C) is better. Whee!

Your takeaway: sometimes there are subtle meaning difference between answer choices. Your job is to read the answer choices carefully twice. If you pick up on that subtlety, great! If not, it's pretty likely that this is one of the harder questions you'll see and it's probably not worth the investment of your time and energy and angst to grapple with it. Keep moving and invest that energy in questions with more digestible answers.

I hope that helps!

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards