rohitgoel15 wrote:
Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government’s decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.
Which one of the following is assumption on which the consumer activist’s argument depends?
(A) Before the recent change in regulatory policy, there was no advantage in having easy access to large metropolitan airport.
(B) When any sizable group of consumers is seriously disadvantaged by a change in government policy, that change should be reversed.
(C) Government regulation of industry almost always works to the advantage of consumers.
(D) At the time of the regulatory change, the major airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes at least in part because of government requirements.
(E) Regional airlines lack the resources to provide consumers with service of the same quality as that provided by the major airlines.
tough one..took me as well 3 mins to solve..I hate assumptions questions...
no regulation -> only $ routes
thus, the activist must assume that the airlines were forced to keep the non-profitable routes because of the regulation.
if such is not true, his argument falls apart.
A is irrelevant
B that's smth that can be inferred from his statement.
C almost here is the black sheep. moreover, how can it work, if in this case people are disadvantaged?
D if we negate this one, the argument is shattered. looks good.
E irrelevant, as he does not speak about regional airlines.