Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen

First look at the stimulus, and understand the argument

After you decompose the argument into premises and conclusion, detect which are one, and fully understand how the passage flows, then it is necessary pre-think the answer.

For this, think about how can the conclusion not be true. Our conclusion is that the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget so now think about possible scenarios where this might not be true.

1-What if proposed legislation in fact will not necessarily mean lower revenues, is that possible? if it is possible then how? are the same number of passenger going to fly, is the ticket price going to increase while maintaining the same number of passengers?

Once you start thinking of possible weakeners, then you predict your assumption that such weakeners are not going to happen. In doing so, you are "protecting your argument" and that is what an assumption really does. "An assumption (the hidden idea or premise we take for granted when reading our argument) must be true for the conclusion to hold true.

So next step is to find some prediction similar to your pre-thinking analysis, eliminating wrong answer choices i.e. out of scope, too extreme, too broad, or simple re-statements (These are the usual wrong answers in such questions)

Answer choice E, IF we negate it, it means that "The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would include an increase in the number of passengers per flight. If it includes an increase, such increase could either cancel out the negative effect or bring even more customers and hence more money per flight. Simply our conclusion would fall apart.

Answer choice A: There are no periods of the day during which the interval between flights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed. This could be true but it is not necessarily true. If we negate this option, meaning that There are periods of the day during which the interval between flights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed and we critically think as how this affect our conclusion, we see that this option does not make the argument less likely. Even if there are no periods greater than the currently allowed, this reasoning does not give me the connection that the conclusion states that the proposed legislation will lead to decreased revenues.

As a final remark, focus on your conclusion and deconstruct the argument, understanding how it flows, how its premises lead to conclusion and what "jumps"of reasoning did the author make.

With practice, it will be much easier to recognize the same patterns

keep it up

Hit for kudos if you liked my explanation

Solution
passage analysis                      
                            
Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport

New safety rules have been proposed for the Beach City airport.

would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport.

These rules would significantly increase the minimum time that is allowed between takeoffs from the airport.

In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily.

As a result of the increased time between takeoffs, the airport will be able to run 10% fewer flights than are currently accommodated.

 The city’s operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending,

It is also given to us that the city’s operating budget relies largely on the taxes that are generated by the tourists that visit the city and spend money there.

 and most of the tourists come by plane.

Most of the tourists arrive by plane.

Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget

Conclusion:

If the new safety rules

{they lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport}
{the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights that currently use the airport daily}
are adopted, they will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget

pre-thinking                                                                 
Falsification question

In what scenario will the new safety rules, if adopted, not reduce the revenue available for the operating budget of the city?
Given that

the new rules significantly increase the minimum time between takes off from the airport
The airport will be able to run 10% fewer flights than are currently
The city’s operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist
Most of the tourists arrive by plane.

Thought Process

The author believes that the new rules will reduce the number of flights run by the airport and thus lead to the reduction in the number of tourists, most of whom arrive by flight. A reduction in the number of tourists would mean less revenue generated by tourist spending. This would in turn reduce the budget available for the city’s operating expenses than come mainly from this tourist spending.


Falsification condition

What if the passenger carrying capacity of the flights is increased at the time when the number of flights is reduced due to the adoption of the new safety rules?

In that case, even with 10% fewer flights, the total number of passengers would remain nearly at the same level as before and the impact on the number of tourists arriving by the plane would be negligible. Consequently, the revenue available for the city operating budget would also remain unaffected and our conclusion would break down.

Assumption

The passenger-carrying capacity of the existing flights cannot be increased to accommodate more passengers.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
This option says that there are no time periods during daytime when the time between takeoffs is significantly greater than that currently allowed.

Does this option have to be true for my conclusion to hold true? No

What the current regulations allow, and whether there are any greater time intervals between takeoffs will cease to matter once the new regulations are adopted. And they will significantly reduce the time intervals between takeoffs.

Hence, this is not the answer.

B
This option says that there are hardly any tourists who use the airport if their main motive is to visit the neighboring community and not Beach city.

So, let us see. Which category of tourists are we talking of in this option? The ones who are anyways not going to spend in Beach city. So even if their already non-existent numbers go down further, they will not be affecting the city’s tourist revenue. This option does not concern my conclusion at all.

Hence, this is not the answer.

C
On the adoption of the safety rules, the number of tourists will go down. And this reduction will come mainly from those tourists who spend relatively more in Beach city.

Let us say this option is true. Does it give us the exact numbers of such tourists (who spend relatively more) or their proportion to ones who don’t? No. What if a very small number of tourists spend relatively more? Then can we determine the actual impact of such reduction on the total tourist revenue? No. Therefore it does not impact our conclusion.

Hence, it is not the correct answer.

D
This option says that the only way to achieve the required safety enhancements without incurring huge government expenditure is to increase the minimum time between takeoffs

It is this particular way (increase the minimum time between takeoffs) that sets the context of the argument. But, it being the only way is not necessary for our argument to be watertight. This particular way if adopted, clearly sets the doubts about tourist numbers going down. There might be other ways but, they are beyond the scope of the argument.

Hence, this is not the correct choice.

E
This option says that the action in response to the execution of the safety rules will not include increasing the number of passengers per flight.

This is in line with our pre-thinking assumption.



Hence, it is the correct choice.

Hello,

Well A literally mentions that "flights are taking off on time"

Does this have anything to do with conclusion... No.

Can we say because flights are taking off as usual so revenue would be decreased?????? No..

Hope it clears!

Hit kudos, if you like this post.

Hello,

Detailed analysis of question is attached for your help.







Please hit kudos, if it helps!

Well see we need to identify the key word.

Increase in time between take offs -- > 10% fewer accommodate at airport.

budget depends heavily on--> tourist spending-->tourists mostly travels in plane

conclusion: the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.

Ok

So our prethinking should be in such fashion:

Lesser tourist --> lesser tourist spending -->lesser budget.

Now see E..

The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per flight.

What does it mean?

It means the passengers/flight would not increase. Also we know that now 10% fewer plans accommodate at airport.So in total the net number of tourists coming to the Beach City has decreased.

Well I hope this helps.. Please do give kudos if you have liked my explanation.

Hello Karishma,

Thanks for great explanation.

I was just wandering whether the assumption number 01 mentioned by you is actually a assumption?

In my opinion it is not. Would appreciate your feedback.

Regards

Here is a case where decrease in capacity may not lead to decrease in number of flights.

Say, the airport can handle 48 flights in a day since it is essential to have 30 mins between takeoffs. So the capacity of the airport is 48 flights.
But it actually handles only 24 - with one hour between take offs.
Now, say new norms require that there should be at least 45 mins between two flights so the capacity of the airport goes down. But will the number of flights reduce? No. There is already more than 45 mins between successive takeoffs. So a decrease in capacity needn't actually cause a decrease in the number of flights.

I was stuck between C and E.
In C, even though the reduction in revenue because of these tourists will be relativesly low, there will still be loss in revenue generated. So, in that case C doesn't weaken the conclusion.

Is that right? If someone has better explanation, please share!

Thanks!

The revenue depends on the number of tourists and not on the number of flights. "E" identifies the assumption correctly.The author assumes that the number of passengers would not increase and hence concludes the revenues will decline. "C" gives a reason for a reduction in tourist numbers. It is not a necessary assumption.

Someone pls help me eliminate C. Thanks!

C. If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

I thought the total reduction = reduction in numbers of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City + reduction in numbers of tourists who spend relatively much more in Beach City

Choice C says that the total reduction will not come mainly from the little, meaning it will come mainly from the much more. Negate this choice: the reduction will come mainly from the little, then it somewhat will not reduce the revenue: the conclusion doesn't hold any more.

(C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

Negated (C): If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

The reduction will be in the number of tourists who spend relatively little.

Is it still possible that the revenue available for the operating budget will reduce?

Yes, these tourists are spending little, relatively speaking. They could still be spending a substantial amount. Also, the number of these tourists could be rather high and a big reduction could actually cause a substantial reduction in the revenue. Anyway, our conclusion talks about a reduction, not a substantial reduction so if there is any kind of reduction, the conclusion holds.

On negating (C), the conclusion can hold and hence (C) is not our assumption.

Why is B wrong? I mean if a lot tourist are just using Beach City as a hopping flight destination, they will stop taking connecting flight from the Beach City and take another route for the nearby community where they are planning to go eventually. Since these travelers were never planning to stay and spend in the Beach City, this wont affect revenues in the Beach City. Does it make sense?

Even if some tourists are hopping over Beach city, there is no reason to believe that only they will be the ones switching to another route. Fewer flight availability would mean fewer for everybody. The flights are not allotted according to final destinations. No preference is given to people entering the city as opposed to people leaving from the airport itself. Hence, (B) is not correct.

The correct answer is E

---------A increases-------------------------> B decreases ----------------------------> C decrease
Security check time increase--------->Number of flight decreases-------->Number of Tourist decreases
. .(A). .(B). .(C).

Our goal is to Maintain C (Number of tourists)

A (Security Check time )cannot be tinkered with, It will stay as it is,
B (Number of Flights ) cannot be changed either ; BUT BUT BUT it can be modified in such a way that C (Number of tourists ) stays constant ---> In summary although the number of flight cannot be increased but size of the planes can be increased, so that every flight coming to the airport can carry more number of tourist whenever it arrives.

So the argument assumes that it cannot happen--> Number of people in flight cannot be increased and therefore number of tourist will decrease

What options says so :--->
E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per flight

Thus E is the assumption that is made by the author.

THEREFORE CORRECT ANSWER IS E

If you personalise any argument that you can find the errors very quickly. For example here you could have used the your knowledge of polar bear food behavior. Polar bears sleep for 6 months and thus cannot eat anything when they are asleep. Thus to compensate for the "NO FOOD- I CANT EAT- I AM SLEEPING", the bear eat lots and lots and lots and lots of food continuously for many weeks before going to hibernation. Similarly when Number of flight is reduced, then aeroplanes should be filled with lots and lots and lots of people, so that number of tourist doesn't decrease.

If Option E is negated, the argument is absolutely not destroyed. It's weakened (very strongly so perhaps), but not destroyed.

Negating Option E-Proposal 'would' increase number of passengers per flight. This sample space is way too wide to say that this would result in an increase in total number of passengers or even the same number of passengers. If you look at the subset of the negated sample space, say the new proposal increases passengers per flight (PPF) by an average of 1-10% (i'll even give you a 10%). Total number of passengers under new proposal = 0.9*Original Number of Flights*1.1*Original Number of Passengers Per Flight= 0.99*Original number of total passengers, which is still fewer than the original number of passengers. So just to be clear, everyone's just cool with the fact that your negated sample space does not conclusively destroy the original argument?

Also not to mention the shift the scope, let's say the number of passengers do increase, increase in number of passengers (new passengers) will translate to an increase in revenues only if they bring in revenues at an average rate greater than passengers from before.

So really Option E is making 2 unwarranted assumptions while some of the other Options are only making 1 unwarranted assumption.

Can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning? Happy to be proven wrong but this is one of the queasiest leaps in logic I've seen in a long long time.

You definitely have a point here, but this is one pretty straight case - I would suggest not to make the argument unnecessarily complex by going into the negation technique. Use the negation technique is recommended ONLY when two very close choices cannot be eliminated ordinarily:

Now coming to option E (do not yet go into negation technique):

If number of flights are reduced, the revenue also reduces.... UNLESS each flight takes more number of passengers. Therefore an underlying assumption is: each flight does not take more passengers.

However there is one deeper way to think this (which you have done):
If number of flights are reduced, the revenue also reduces.... UNLESS each flight takes (sufficiently) more number of passengers (to compensate for the reduced number of flights). Therefore an underlying assumption is: each flight does not take (sufficiently) more passengers (to compensate for the reduced number of flights).

This deeper analysis would be required if there were two close answers difficult to eliminate - say the second assumption were actually one of the answers choices.

In such case one would require to do an elimination based on negation and obviously one would have has to select the second over first. However in absence of the second assumption,the first passes well as the best choice.

Clicking on the correct option that GMAT thinks is is at the end all that matters.

I agree that E is the best answer. However, I am struggling with one silly exception...

The original argument discusses how the city's revenue is closely tied to tourist spending. If the number of passengers increases, that doesn't necessarily equate to tourist spending does it?

Am I reading into this too much? I have a tendency to turn assumption questions into weaken / strengthen questions...