GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Jul 2018, 18:08

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 52
Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2012, 16:57
5
18
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

88% (01:26) correct 12% (03:21) wrong based on 2658 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided. Hevelia airstrip, 40 miles away, would, if upgraded and expanded, be an attractive alternative for fully 20 percent of the passengers using Greentown airport. Nevertheless, experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the experts' position?

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways.

(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown.

(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development.

(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs.

(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations.

OG 13 – Q22

Edit: Formatting
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 51
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 15:06
11
1
Qassam wrote:
It is a bit odd to see that the right answer in a "strengthener" question attacks a premise! the new airport was supposed to be an "attractive alternative" as mentioned in the stimulus. Are you sure of the source of this question?

This is from OG 13 – #22 in the CR section.

This is framed as a Strengthen question, but it's actually best to think of it as a Weaken!

Note that the argument is deconstructed as

- We need a 10% reduction to help with delays.
- Expanding a nearby airport could make that airport attractive for up to 20% of the passengers.

Then the "experts" basically say "this plan won't work". Since we're asked to justify the experts' opinion, we could think of this as weakening the unstated conclusion "this plan will work."

(E) does not attack a premise. Rather, it basically gives a reason for why switching to the alternative airport won't be a good option for the airlines. The premise states that switch would be appealing to the passengers. Well, if it's appealing to the passengers, but the airlines have a reason not to do it, that weakens the claim that the plan will work!

Hope that helps!

Mark
_________________

Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 492
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2012, 21:53
1
(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations.

people will continue to land at Greentown and will find it uneasy to catch the different flights , out of which many will be taking off from the other airport, so the congestion will be same and increase hassle for the passengers.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 74
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 09-30-2012
GPA: 3.08
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2012, 04:53
2
I couldn't get why E is the right answer But looking at thee other four options i could very easily rule them out.
So E
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 172
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2012, 03:06
1
Given:
Greentown airport is clogged and hence planes are delayed.
Reduction of 10% in the number of scheduled flights at Greentown airport -> Delays avoided

If Hevelia airstrip is upgraded and expanded would take away 20% passengers load from Greentown airport.

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways. - Its already mentioned in the passage that the Hevelia has to be upgraded and expanded. Does not fill in the gap between the premise and conclusion - Incorrect
(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown. - Hevelia should be able to take away the load from Greentown not by being attractive but by functional - Irrelevant - Incorrect
(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development. - Out of Scope - Incorrect
(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations. - Greentown serves as a hub for many airlines whose passengers wait for their next connectiving flights. Hence most of the scheduled flights are interconnected. Taking away 20% passenger load away would create unnecessary hardship for the passengers who wait for other flights - Correct
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 74
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 09-30-2012
GPA: 3.08
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2012, 08:20
1
sidhu09 wrote:
Given:
Greentown airport is clogged and hence planes are delayed.
Reduction of 10% in the number of scheduled flights at Greentown airport -> Delays avoided

If Hevelia airstrip is upgraded and expanded would take away 20% passengers load from Greentown airport.

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways. - Its already mentioned in the passage that the Hevelia has to be upgraded and expanded. Does not fill in the gap between the premise and conclusion - Incorrect
(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown. - Hevelia should be able to take away the load from Greentown not by being attractive but by functional - Irrelevant - Incorrect
(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development. - Out of Scope - Incorrect
(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations. - Greentown serves as a hub for many airlines whose passengers wait for their next connectiving flights. Hence most of the scheduled flights are interconnected. Taking away 20% passenger load away would create unnecessary hardship for the passengers who wait for other flights - Correct

That is your assumption ! not given in the passage! we cannot say this.
Taking away 20% passenger load away would create unnecessary hardship for the passengers who wait for other flights
Manager
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 117
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2012, 23:53
Can someone please explain why C does not make sense or out of scope - Doesn't increase in commercial and residential development mean that possibly more people taking flights and so more demand for flights and hence flight delay does not get any better.

How is this choice out of scope?
Senior Manager
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 323
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2012, 10:38
teal wrote:
Can someone please explain why C does not make sense or out of scope - Doesn't increase in commercial and residential development mean that possibly more people taking flights and so more demand for flights and hence flight delay does not get any better.

How is this choice out of scope?

Well what does the main conclusion say --->

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided

We are concerned only about the delays and not anything else , with C both possibilities arise commercial and residential dev could mean more delays or less delays depending on how the construction is done, if the construction is efficient one might actually reduce delays. Hence this option is Out of scope or at the best Neutral
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 23
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 10:33
It is a bit odd to see that the right answer in a "strengthener" question attacks a premise! the new airport was supposed to be an "attractive alternative" as mentioned in the stimulus. Are you sure of the source of this question?
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2013
Posts: 30
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2013, 08:19
MarkSullivan wrote:
(E) does not attack a premise. Rather, it basically gives a reason for why switching to the alternative airport won't be a good option for the airlines. The premise states that switch would be appealing to the passengers. Well, if it's appealing to the passengers, but the airlines have a reason not to do it, that weakens the claim that the plan will work!

What is not clear to me is how to interpret E that it won't be a good option for the airlines? It seems to suggest that the plan would reduce "congestion".
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 82
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2013, 03:34

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided. Hevelia airstrip, 40 miles away, would, if upgraded and expanded, be an attractive alternative for fully 20 percent of the passengers using Greentown airport. Nevertheless, experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the experts' position?

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways.

(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown.

(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development.

(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs.

(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations.
_________________

Kudos always encourages me

Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 9
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2014, 10:51
1
swati007 wrote:

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided. Hevelia airstrip, 40 miles away, would, if upgraded and expanded, be an attractive alternative for fully 20 percent of the passengers using Greentown airport. Nevertheless, experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the experts' position?

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways.the highways are part of turning Helvetia into a full-service airport, so this does nothing to strengthen the argument

(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown.The reason behind which this alternative could be more attractive could involve factors besides less delays (e.g. proximity to the center of the city). Also, just because it is MORE attractive to MANY passengers doesn't mean that it encompasses more than 20% of the passengers described in the stimulus.

(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development. This does not directly address what it would due to end delays at Greentown

(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs.This has nothing to do with delays at Greentown Airport

(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations.This strengthens the argument the most. All the upgrade of the Helvetia airport claims to do is become a more attractive alternative to passengers. It does not claim to become attractive to these airlines

Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 168
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2014, 07:08
What is the conclusion of the argument?
Concl: "Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided"
OR
Concl: "experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown."

Finding conclusion is imp Strengthen/Weaken/Assumption questions?????

Rrsnathan.
Intern
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Posts: 49
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2015, 01:15
betterscore wrote:
Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights using Greentown's airport will allow the delays that are so common there to be avoided. Hevelia airstrip, 40 miles away, would, if upgraded and expanded, be an attractive alternative for fully 20 percent of the passengers using Greentown airport. Nevertheless, experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the experts' position?

(A) Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would require not only substantial construction at the airport itself, but also the construction of new access highways.

(B) A second largely undeveloped airstrip close to Greentown airport would be a more attractive alternative than Hevelia for many passengers who now use Greentown.

(C) Hevelia airstrip lies in a relatively undeveloped area but would, if it became a full-service airport, be a magnet for commerc ial and residential development.

(D) If an airplane has to wait to land, the extra jet fuel required adds significantly to the airline's costs.

(E) Several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub, so that most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations.

The reason E is tempting is because its a hub ...but that should be a strong reason why people should be able to catch all their connecting flights at a different location..as they have no business being in Greentown!
Of the lot 'B' is a good contender.
Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2015
Posts: 5
GMAT 1: 420 Q31 V19
GMAT 2: 430 Q29 V20
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2016, 22:49
Let me try dump it down :
The argument - 10% reduction in # of flights will reduce delays in G airport. H is alternative for 25% passengers using G. Expert says H alternative is not good.
Justify expert's position.

My goal ( correct answer) is to find sth that says that G will be still used even with H as alternative.

E - says that passengers are inside G airport already and connecting to flights within G. They do not have to get out of G airport at all ( so they do not use H at all). So, G will have these passengers who are not going to H. H will not be alternative and that support expert position.
Current Student
Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 345
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2016, 08:59
1
MarkSullivan wrote:
Qassam wrote:
It is a bit odd to see that the right answer in a "strengthener" question attacks a premise! the new airport was supposed to be an "attractive alternative" as mentioned in the stimulus. Are you sure of the source of this question?

This is from OG 13 – #22 in the CR section.

This is framed as a Strengthen question, but it's actually best to think of it as a Weaken!

Note that the argument is deconstructed as

- We need a 10% reduction to help with delays.
- Expanding a nearby airport could make that airport attractive for up to 20% of the passengers.

Then the "experts" basically say "this plan won't work". Since we're asked to justify the experts' opinion, we could think of this as weakening the unstated conclusion "this plan will work."

(E) does not attack a premise. Rather, it basically gives a reason for why switching to the alternative airport won't be a good option for the airlines. The premise states that switch would be appealing to the passengers. Well, if it's appealing to the passengers, but the airlines have a reason not to do it, that weakens the claim that the plan will work!

Hope that helps!

Mark

That makes sense. The airlines that are using Greentown as a regional hub are probably unlikely to move their flights to the new airport. Imagine if United uses DIA as a regional hub with 1,000 flights in and out per day, they can't simply divert some of their flights to a different airport because the connection flights will also have to change, which means other flights that feed into the connection flights will also have to be altered. All these changes would cause a mess.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 334
Schools: Schulich '16
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2016, 22:59
E only makes sense..

rest all are irrelevant to the argument
VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1174
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2016, 01:10
using elimination i choose e and correct but

i do not why e is right

if old airport is used as hub, why new airport can not be used as a hub to take other flights. e should say, new airport can not be used as a hub.

pls, explain . this is official question and should be studied carefully
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 80
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GMAT 2: 750 Q50 V41
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2016, 00:58
thangvietnam

As per (e) "most flights landing at Greentown have many passengers who then take different flights to reach their final destinations"

Most means >50% and less than 100% . If say 95% of flights landing at Greentown use it as a regional hub then it will not be possible for them to redirect to the new airport. Since there is less than 10% reduction in air traffic , chronic delays will still continue.
_________________

Appreciate any KUDOS given !

Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2017
Posts: 22
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2017, 04:46
I have a doubt, ok the answer is E and the other answ choices are easy to eliminate,but in E there is an assumption that the other airport will not be a regional hub. Because if it is I don't think E could be correct. because ok if I am free to assume that the Hevelia airstrip could be also a regional hub I will not be able to solve the problem,I think.
In many CR questions I don't know how much I can assume from the answer choices can someone help mE?
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled   [#permalink] 20 Feb 2017, 04:46

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.