Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they prom

Question

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.

The industry representative’s argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist’s claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.

(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.

(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.

(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.

(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

(C)
The consumer activist complains that deregulating major airlines has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who doesn’t have easy access to a major airport. The industry representative counters that, on the contrary, thanks to regional airlines, there are now more regular flights out of most small airports than there used to be. Do you see the problem, in the form of the scope shift? The activist is talking about “disadvantage” and the representative is talking about “number of flights.” We need something to connect those ideas, and we find it in (C).

(A) is too strong. The representative doesn’t have to make such an absolute claim in order to rebut the activist’s claim that everyone without access to a major airport has suffered.

(B) sounds like the evidence from the consumer activist’s argument (or at least something that’s implied by this evidence), but is not crucial to the validity of the industry representative’s point.

(D) The representative refutes the activist’s claim of “disadvantage” by pointing out the increased number of flights. “Cost” is outside the scope, and so certainly isn’t relied upon in the representative’s argument.

(E) is too general; the representative needn’t assume that an increase in competitors is always a long-term advantage. Moreover, it’s not even clear that there has been any increase in the total number of airlines.

Kurtosis · Answer

Question Type: We have to weaken the Industry representative's argument

Consumer activist: Govt.'s regulation is a disadvantage to consumers
Industry representative: Takes a contrary stance and says that its not a disadvantage to consumers

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry. - This strengthens the Industry representative's argument

(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports. - Doesn't affect the industry representative's argument.

(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers. - Correct. This option attacks the industry representative's point. Its a disadvantage to consumers now because that there are more flights into and out of regional airports.

(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route. - Strengthens the industry representative's claim.

(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers. - Same as D.

Answer: C

rohit8865 · Answer

hi  Vyshak

isnt one have to weaken Consumer activist argument??

thanks..

Kurtosis · Answer

The industry representative’s argument will  not provide  an effective answer to the consumer activist’s claim 
Red colored part above gives us an indication that we have to weaken the industry representative's argument.

The industry representative’s argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist’s claim unless which one of the following is true? --> We can reframe this as 'Which of the following option has to be true so that the industry representative would not be to be able to provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim'

raycal84 · Answer

I read the stimulus like this:

What answer below do we need to strengthen the rep's argument to validate for the consumer to buy into.

abhi88 · Answer

Here is my understanding

Consumer activist – New policy has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large M.A.
Industry Rep- New Policy has worked to the advantage of everyone.

A) But is it profitable for everyone? It is not talking about advantage or disadvantage of consumer.
B) Out
C) Increase in the number of flights-Easy access- No disadvantage for consumer - Correct
D) Charges are less- is it easily accessible
E) Out of scope

DharLog · Answer

Vyshyak, thanks for your reasoning.

But how does option C attack the industry representative's claim?
This policy was a reason to move more flights to regional airports. And customers have an easy access to them. This policy does not work for disadvantage. ----> Strengthens.
Where am I not right?

Ninokh · Answer

A ) out of scope - the main point is advantage/disadvantage

B) Same here

C) Correct
D)
I rejected this because consumer advantage does not mean cheap prices, we have to assume that. Also this choice was tempting

E) out of scope

mSKR · Answer

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.

The industry representative’s argument  will not provide an effective answer  to the consumer activist’s claim  unless  which one of the following is true?

What we need to find out:  Which statement provides EFFECTIVE ANSWER to consumer acitvist's claim.

Fulfill the gap:
 More regional flights  will  not be disadvantage  ( Another words: more flights will be an advantage to consumers)

It doesn’t connect to advantage or disadvantage to consumer claim. Straightforward  reject

Out of C,D and E.  
 
It is more precise to say that it doesn’t disadvantage to consumers, rather than highlighting advantages as given in D and E choices.
 NOT disadvantage = Advantage 1+ advantage 2 +advantage 3…. 
( it covers the entire scope of all advantages )
 Hence C is preferred choice

D could have been better choice if C option is not present. In D it covers only about charges. Less charges maybe an advantage but it could be a disadvantage also. Maybe less prices means less services during the flight , which could be disadvantage for premium passengers.  So D scope is shorter than C to cover.  Hence C is better choice

Similar reasoning for E as in D as E covers another type of advantage ie. Long term advantage. Scope is not covered big as mentioned in C ,  so option C is preferred choice over E. 
Hence C correct

tndvekas760 · Answer

I took it is as an Assumption question, cause of the 'unless'!! Further, I eliminated D and E cause they are just supporters not Assumptions!! Did I go wrong.....? Please clarify!!!!

Fdambro294 · Answer

I looked at the question as an Assumption type question as well, though focusing on the Q-Stem is what matters most.

Consumer Activist: He concludes that the result of the major airlines abandoning all but their most profitable routes has "worked to the disadvantage of everyone" who does not have access to a large metro airport.

The Industry Rep believes he is wrong. The airlines dropping all but their most profitable routes has NOT worked to the disadvantage of the ppl who do not have access to a large metro airport.

He uses as evidence the fact that Regional Airlines have move in to take over these "non-metro" routes and that there is now "more flights into and out of most small airports" than there was before.

Looking at the GAP from the Facts the Industry Rep uses to the Conclusion he makes: what must be true for his answer to be "effective"?

Bigger and more does not always mean better. The 2 terms are not synonymous. He must be assuming that these regional airlines coming in and now providing even MORE flights into and out of the small airports is a GOOD THING for the consumers who lack access to a large metro airport. The Industry Rep must be assuming that "more flights" by the regional airlines = something that does NOT put these consumers at a disadvantage.

(C) perfectly fills in this Gap in the Industry Rep's response.

If it were true that increasing the number of flights to which customers of "non-metro", regional airports have easy access to actually DID work to the disadvantage of the consumers, then the Industry Rep's response is not effective.

(A)It does not have to be true that "NO" small airport has fewer flights now than it did before. Some could have less and it is still true that the regional airlines moved in and there are more flights now than ever before at these "non-metro" airports.

(B)Similiarly, it does not have to be true that EACH of the major airlines abandoned ALL but the largest metro airports. The airlines dropped their "most profitable routes." Regardless, this is not something that would help to make the Industry Rep's rebuttal more effective. Focusing on his line of reasoning is more effective and this does not affect it.

(D)This fact may strengthen the Industry Rep's rebuttal in some small way by showing that the consumers are a bit better off with cheaper flights, but this Fact is not something that is NECESSARY for the Industry Rep's rebuttal to be effective. His rebuttal is focused on the amount of flights now available, not the cost.

(E)We are not told anything about whether the number of competitors has increased or decreased. It could be that the same airline companies are around, but the regional ones just took on more routes.

Furthermore, another clue is the words "long-term advantage." It is not clear whether the Industry Rep is focused on the effects to consumers in the long-term, short-term or both.

(C) is the correct answer

gmatbd · Answer

What's the question stem is actually asking? Is it asking us to strengthen the industry rep's statement or the opposite?

Neurogenesis · Answer

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.

=> (It is implied that the major airlines have abandoned the smaller airports. This could lead to a decrease in the number of flights in such airports, which is detrimental to the consumers relying on such airports).

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.

=> (A link between “more flights” and the situation being to the advantage of consumers relying on smaller airports should be made by one option below; to bridge the gap).

The industry representative’s argument provides an effective answer to the consumer activist’s claim if which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry. 
 It is not required that  all  of the small airports have more flights now than before the change. Even if 80% of such airports have more flights now, the argument will provide an effective answer to the claim. OUT
 
 (B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports. 
 This strengthens the claim of the activist. They promptly did abandon their less profitable routes, when allowed to do so. This does nothing to make the representative’s argument an effective answer. We already knew that they promptly did. And we do not need regional airlines to be everywhere now. OUT 
 
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers. 
 The policy has resulted in an increase in flights into and out of accessible small airports. It is required that such change (“more flights” in smaller airports) works to the advantage of consumers, for the argument to be effective against the claim that the regulation has been to the disadvantage of consumers lacking access to large airports (and thus relying on smaller airports). CORRECT 
 
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route. 
 If the flights (increased in number) are cheaper, then this would be an advantage for the consumers. However, it is not required. We need the argument to address the claim that consumers  lacking access  to large airports are disadvantaged by the new regulation. Abundance in accessible flights is required for the argument to be effective against such claim. Even if the prices are the same (negation), the argument can be effective as long as the situation (more flights in accessible smaller airports) benefits the consumers. OUT 
 
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers. 
 This is too broad. It is not required that an increase in competition always favors consumers for the argument (that there are more flights now in small accessible airports due to regional airlines) to be effective against the claim (that the regulation has been to the disadvantage of consumers lacking access to large airports). OUT

I hope it helps.

Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they prom

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

Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they prom

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