Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin

Question

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 commercial 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.

ID - CR04366

Greentown Airport 
 
  Step 1: Identify the Question

This question stem is challenging. The if true language indicates that the question is one of three types: Strengthen, Weaken, or Explain the Discrepancy.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

G airport: delays common

ONLY fixed by 10% ↓ flights

H airport upgrade → 20% of G pass. find H ‘attractive’

BUT experts: this will not end delays

There are two parts to this argument. The first part describes a particular line of reasoning. If Hevelia airport is upgraded, then 20% of current Greentown passengers will find Hevelia an attractive alternative, and this will presumably reduce delays at Greentown. The second part, however, states that  experts reject this claim  and believe that the delays will continue, in spite of the evidence in the argument. The experts’ rejection is a surprising phenomenon that needs to be explained. Treat this as an  Explain the Discrepancy  problem.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

The right answer will explain the experts’ surprising belief that the upgrade will fail. In order to do so, it must explain why, even in light of the facts, the Hevelia upgrade won’t reduce delays at Greentown.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The experts’ claim is that the upgrade won’t reduce flight delays. Construction and new access highways aren’t necessarily connected to flight delays in any way.

(B) The existence of a different potential solution to the problem doesn’t explain why experts believe the current solution will fail.

(C) Whether Hevelia airstrip becomes a magnet for commercial and residential development doesn’t clearly relate to whether it will reduce flight delays at Greentown. It’s possible that the commercial and residential development will make Hevelia even more attractive to Greentown passengers, but in this case, the experts’ position—that developing Hevelia will not reduce delays—would be even stranger.

(D) The experts claim that the upgrade will not reduce flight delays, while this answer choice suggests that reducing flight delays will reduce airline costs. A statement about the effects of reducing flight delays does not justify a claim about the plausibility of reducing flight delays.

(E) CORRECT . Most flights landing at Greentown land there specifically because several airlines use Greentown as a regional hub. Even if Hevelia is upgraded, most flights landing at Greentown won’t be able to switch to landing at Hevelia, unless more changes, not discussed in the argument, are implemented. Therefore, delays at Greentown won’t necessarily decrease. In light of this reasoning, the experts’ skepticism makes sense.

MarkSullivan · Accepted Answer

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

sidhu09 · Answer

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

thevenus · Answer

(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.

mandyrhtdm · Answer

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

Qassam · Answer

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?

swati007 · Answer

Reopening for further discussion. Please justify your answers.

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.

boyanshmorhun · Answer

(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.

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.

The answer is  E

gmatassassin2015 · Answer

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.

HiLine · Answer

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.

thangvietname · Answer

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

rishi02 · Answer

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.

lorenzo393 · Answer

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?

ClassSkippa · Answer

It's a good doubt, E requires the assumption that 40 miles is too far and airlines won't re-schedule their flights to use that as the new hub. To me this doesn't be a problem, 40 miles isn't far when you are flying at blazing speed.

C to me is a great contender: more development = more congestion, thus we don't get the added benefits. But C is more uncertain than E, therefore E is correct. Does it make sense? Sorta, but not great. It's one of those cases where we just hail to the GMAC lords.

prabsahi · Answer

C doesnt make sense.

What happens will Havelia is not the concern of the argument.We need to weaken the fact that the the plan will not be successful even if 
Havelia is operational. ...so somehow airlines traffic wont be reduced there..Here it talks about it being social magnet..so a little off tangent to the discussion in hand ..

Press Kudos if it helps!!

varun325 · Answer

position: experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.
A
B
C
D
E correct. 
even if flights are diverted to other airport more than 50% of the flights have passengers who will still have to board thier connecting flight from the greentown airport.So the problem of chronic delays will not be avoided

Posted from my mobile device

kornn · Answer

Dear  VeritasKarishma   AjiteshArun   GMATGuruNY   IanStewart   MartyTargetTestPrep   DmitryFarber ,

In light of choice E. and the passage, can we safely say that the passengers with connecting flights are unlikely to be in the fully 20% the passengers using Greentown airport who find Hevelia airstrip an attractive alternative? 
I note that choice E. says "many" passengers, not MOST passengers.
 
Passage:
 
(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 .

GMATGuruNY · Answer

The goal is to reduce at Greentown not the number of passengers but the number of FLIGHTS.
According to E, most FLIGHTS landing at Greentown contain passengers who must make a connection AT GREENTOWN.
Implication:
Hevelia is not a viable option for these flights, STRENGTHENING the conclusion that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would not end the chronic delays at Greentown.

custodio · Answer

Hi  GMATGuruNY

Choice (E) says "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."

Do we have to assume that connection flights should take place in Greentown? (E) does not say anything about it. In fact, we can also assume that connection flights can take place in Hevelia, reducing the congestion in Greentown. 
(Note: we would not care about how inconvenient it would be to go from Greentown to Hevelia because the argument is all about reducing the traffic, not the convenience)

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Consider the following case:
Every day at Greentown, flights A, B, C and D arrive with 100 passengers each.
According to E, most of these passengers must make a connecting flight.
Let's say 90 passengers on each plane must connect to flight X or Y -- a total of  360 passengers .
According to the passage, Hevelia is to handle 20% of the passengers at Greentown.
20% of 400 daily passengers at Greentown = 80.
Best case scenario:
80 of the 360 connecting passengers in blue use Hevelia instead of Greentown.
Result:
Flights A, B, C and D each still have passengers who must connect to flight X or Y at Greentown.
Implication:
Traffic at Greentown is not reduced, since all 6 planes -- A, B, C, D, X and Y -- must all still use Greentown.

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin

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

Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin

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