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

It is currently 17 Oct 2018, 05:58

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 46
Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2012, 16:57
6
22
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

89% (01:46) correct 11% (02:17) wrong based on 2932 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 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
G 13 – Q22

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.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
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 flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 459
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2012, 21:53
2
(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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 69
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 flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2012, 04:53
3
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 147
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2012, 03:06
4
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 69
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 flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 113
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 21
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2013
Posts: 27
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Posts: 80
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2013, 03:34
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.
_________________

Kudos always encourages me

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2014, 10:51
1
swati007 wrote:
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.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

The answer is
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 160
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?????

Please give ur inputs.

Thanks in Advance,
Rrsnathan.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: I am ready!
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Posts: 44
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
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 flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
User avatar
B
Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 334
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 flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 943
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 78
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GMAT 2: 750 Q50 V41
Reviews Badge
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2016, 00:58
1
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jan 2017
Posts: 21
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 55
Reviews Badge
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Dec 2017, 10:33
lorenzo393 wrote:
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?


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.
_________________

Insanity at its finest.

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Only a reduction of 10 percent in the number of scheduled flights usin &nbs [#permalink] 03 Dec 2017, 10:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.