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

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'

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.

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

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?

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

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


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

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!!!!

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

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