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

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
_________________

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

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.

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.

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.

(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.

(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

Reduction of 10% flights is needed to counter delays.
Upgrade Hevelia - which is attractive for 20% of passengers (perhaps because Hevelia is closer to home etc)

Experts: Upgrading Hevelia will not end delays at Greentown.

What would justify 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.

Irrelevant. What would upgrading Hevelia require is irrelevant. We have to think about whether upgrading Hevelia will end delays at Greentown.

(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.

Irrelevant. What could be a better plan, is irrelevant. Whether this plan will work or not is the question.

(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.

Makes one think. Perhaps more people living near Hevelia will congest Hevelia too and it will not be able to support Greentown. But this is expected to happen over time. No reason why, for a while at least, it won't support Greentown. Let's hold on and look ahead.

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

Extra cost to airlines is irrelevant.

(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.

Most flights have passengers with connecting flights. This means that MOST Greentown flights will not be able to switch to Hevelia because they carry passengers who need to take other flights from Greentown. Then, even if we upgrade Hevelia, the flights may not switch to Hevelia and hence the delays will not end. Correct. Directly helps us identify the problem in our plan and hence supports experts.

Answer (E)

Many/Some passengers doesn't matter. As long as there are such passengers in MOST flights.
Say there are total 100 flights in Greentown. One of them is flight X.
Monday - Flight X had 10 passengers with 10 different connecting flights. (Flights A to Flight J)
Tuesday - It has 8 passengers with 8 different connecting flights (Flights K to Flight R)
and so on...

Can flight X switch to Hevelia? No.
This is the case with MOST flights.

Passage Analysis

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.


In Greentown airport, flights face the problem of delays.
This problem is a common one.
Just a reduction of 10% is required to be made in the total number of scheduled flights that use Greentown airport to avoid these delays
We can infer here, that it is the sheer number of scheduled flights that is causing the delays.


Hevelia airstrip, 40 miles away, would, if upgraded and expanded, be an attractive alternative for fully 20 percent of the passengers using Greentown airport.


Hevelia airstrip is 40 miles away.
It can be an attractive option for 20% of the total passengers using Greentown airport.
This would be possible only when Hevelia is upgraded and expanded.
We can infer that currently Hevelia is probably not a full-fledged airport like Greentown’s.

Nevertheless, experts reject the claim that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would end the chronic delays at Greentown.


In spite of the Hevelia alternative, experts do not believe that the regular delays at Greentown airport can be avoided.
Thus, they reject the Hevelia plan.


Conclusion

Experts believe that turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would not put an end to the common delays at Green town airport.





Pre-thinking


Strengthen Framework


Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the strengthen framework:

What new information will help us believe more in the conclusion that
Turning Hevelia into a full-service airport would not put an end to the regular delays at Greentown airport.




Given that
Only 10% of the scheduled flights at Green town need to be reduced in order to avoid the commonly occurring delays.
This means delays are common at Greentown
20% of the passengers will find Hevelia airstrip an attractive alternative to using Greentown airport
Once Hevelia is upgraded and expanded
Hevelia is 40 miles away

Thought Process



The author mentions that 20% of the passengers would find Hevelia an attractive alternative.



What about the remaining 80% of the passengers?



Would they also find the change attractive? Or would they be discomfited?



If a good majority of the passengers do not find Hevelia an attractive alternative, then they

would probably not choose airlines operating that route and that would not be beneficial for the

airlines as well.

Thus, the Hevelia plan will not turn out to be a success.

Moreover, Hevelia is a good 40 miles away.

What if it is too far for the majority of the passengers and they stick to the Greentown route



Strengthener



So, if an option statement indicates that passengers are more inclined to the idea of using Greentown because of some reason, over using Hevelia, and are therefore likely to take the

Green town route, then it would strengthen the experts’ claim that turning Hevelia into a full-blown airport is not going to significantly reduce delays at Greentown.


Answer Choice Analysis


Option A - The passage does not talk about any costs involved. Even the experts do not mention costs involved as the reason for rejecting the claim. Their reason for rejection is that the change will not eliminate the delays and therefore the plan is useless.

Thus, this option is not the correct choice.

Option B - This is another alternative or option being presented. But even if this option is better than the Hevelia option, does it support the conclusion, why Hevelia itself will not solve the problem of delays.

No, it does not. It just moves away to another alternative.

Thus, is not the correct choice.

Option C - This option states the commercial advantages of turning Hevelia into a full-blown airport. But it does not touch upon the benefit of Hevelia in avoiding the delays at Greentown.

Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option D - This gives an urgency to the problem of delays and implies that a solution is required. But it does not touch on whether the Hevelia alternative is a viable solution or not.

Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.

Option E - This is in line with our pre-thinking.



If Greentown is used as a regional center of sorts by many airlines, then they would not be inclined to take the Hevelia route. Their passengers take flights which are available from Greentown to other places. Shifting to Hevelia will the make this a difficult thing to do as Hevelia is 40 miles away. And the airlines would stick to landing at Green town.

This supports the experts’ claim that shifting to Hevelia is not going to reduce delays that occur so commonly.

Thus, this is the correct answer choice.
_________________

The passage debates what would happen if Hevelia airstrip was "upgraded" and "expanded." There's no limitation on what that means -- it could very well include the the construction of new access highways. So the information in (A) doesn't explain the claim that the expansion won't work. It just provides us more detail on what, exactly, would need to be done to upgrade and expand Hevelia.

(A) is out, and (E) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

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

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.

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

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.
_________________

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)

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.
_________________