Intern
Joined: 30 Sep 2015
Posts: 47
Given Kudos: 43
Location: United States (MD)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V27
WE:Marketing (Consumer Products)
OG 2016-CR-Q84: Proposed safety rules for the Beach City airport
[#permalink]
30 Apr 2016, 07:07
84. Proposed safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. The city’s operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. Therefore, the proposed new safety rule, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
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 minimum.
B) Few, if any, of the tourists who use Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach city itself.
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
D) Increasing the minimum time between takeoffs is the only way to achieve necessary safety improvements without a large expenditure by the city government on airport enhancements.
E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include a large increase in the number of passengers per flight.
Hi Experts!
I have two queries related to this exercise.
1st: Is it an assumption question with causality in conclusion? (My analysis is below)
2nd: I came with 3 pre-thinking ideas. 2 of them are in the answer choices, but I can’t figure out why Option A is wrong.
Analysis:
Logical structure
i) Proposed SR for BCA → lengthen min time btw takeoffs → Possibility that BCA reduce daily flights by 10%.
ii) BC operating budget (OB) depends heavily on taxes generated by tourists’ expenditure.
iii) Most of tourist comes by plane.
I, ii & iii) Conclusion: if proposed SR is implemented, it will reduce revenues for BC’s OB.
Question esteem: Assumption (Causality in conclusion) SR if implemented → Reduce revenues for BC’s OB.
Pre-thinking
• Most tourists that come by plane stay in BC to expend money (doing tourism).
• Flights won’t increment largely the number of passengers per flight as a response to the decrease of flights.
• There are no periods of time between takeoffs much longer than the proposed minimum time that will allow to reschedule the flights during the day and to not reduce the number of flights.
Answer choice analysis
A) This is a correct assumption. The negated statement (There are periods of the day during which the interval between flights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed minimum.) takes the conclusion apart because there is a possibility that BC airport would be able to accommodate 10% fewer flights (less tourists), but the same number of daily flights could be reschedule if there is significantly grater time intervals between takeoffs.
B) iSWAT. This option is talking about tourist who use BC airport. They don’t use the airport when visit neighboring communities. Irrelevant information.
C) OFS. From the information given, I can’t assume that the reduction in tourist numbers are not caused mainly because of the reduction of the number or tourists who spend little in BC. It could be a mix of both groups.
D) OFS. This option talks about the city’s expenditure and not about revenues.
E) This is a correct assumption. The negated statement (The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would include a large increase in the number of passengers per flight) takes the conclusion apart because this option means an increase in number of tourists per flight. It would balance a lost of tourists due to less flights. Thus, revenues won’t decrease.
Please help.
Thanks a lot!
Rumi