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.

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.

ramana · Answer

D it is..took me 3 mins though

Major airlines abandoned their less profitable routes after government's decision to cease regulation -> activists assumes that only this regulation forced airline industry to hold their less profitable routes.

nusmavrik · Answer

P1 : the government’s decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone

The keyword here is the "Govt" decision.

D allows the consumer activist to state P1 more affirmatively. Because the airlines was in losses "partly" due to Govt's fault, it is the govt which is responsible for the losses before the regulation. D reiterates who is at fault.

(A) Before the recent change in regulatory policy, there was no advantage in having easy access to large metropolitan airport. ----> This is 180 degree wrong choice.
(B) When any sizable group of consumers is seriously disadvantaged by a change in government policy, that change should be reversed. ----> Out of scope
(C) Government regulation of industry almost always works to the advantage of consumers. ----> Out of scope
(E) Regional airlines lack the resources to provide consumers with service of the same quality as that provided by the major airlines. ----> Out of scope

dc3828102 · Answer

D.

The argument is that the consumers became disadvantaged --- only the choice D demonstrates that the consumers were better off before the change in regulatory policy.

mvictor · Answer

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.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

The consumer activist claims that deregulation worked to the disadvantage of everyone without access to a major airport. Why? Because the removal of government regulations allowed major airlines to abandon unprofitable routes “as they promptly did.” That means, as (D) points out, that the regulations had been to some degree responsible for the fact that the airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes. Use the denial test; if the regulations weren’t partly responsible, then their removal wouldn’t have caused a wholesale abandonment of the unprofitable routes.

(A) The activist claims that deregulation created new disadvantages for those without access to major airports, but needn’t assume that before deregulation there were no disadvantages for those without such access.

(B) The activist needn’t assume anything about what should be done, since he never addresses that concern in his argument; moreover (B)’s claim about “any sizable group of consumers” is clearly too general in scope.

(C) is also too general; the activist says that in this case deregulation created disadvantages, but needn’t assume that regulation “almost always” is advantageous.

(E) The activist’s argument never mentioned “regional airlines” so you can be pretty sure he’s not assuming anything about them. Moreover, the argument doesn’t discuss “quality of service” but concentrates on access to service.

kapstone1996 · Answer

Even if you did not completely understand it, D is the best choice.

A,B,C,&E, do not provide any strength to the argument that the question is asking for.

Rickooreoisb · Answer

(A) Before policy change, there was no advantage to having access to large metro airports.

❌ Irrelevant. Activist argues about disadvantage to those without metro access.
Does not affect causation.

(B) If many consumers are disadvantaged, policy should be reversed.

❌ Normative claim (what should be done).
Argument is about whether harm occurred, not policy reversal.

(C) Government regulation almost always benefits consumers.

❌ Too broad and unnecessary.
Argument only needs this specific case, not “almost always.”

(D) At the time of the regulatory change, major airlines maintained less profitable routes at least partly because of government requirements.

✅ Matches pre-thinking.

If majors kept routes due to regulation → deregulation caused them to abandon routes → harm to small-airport consumers.

If this is false → majors may have dropped routes anyway → activist’s causal claim collapses.

(E) Regional airlines lack resources to provide same quality service.

❌ Not required. Activist’s argument is about access, not quality.
Even equal quality wouldn’t fix loss of routes.

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