Abolition of government regulation of airfares has increased competiti

Airlines will face competition from each other, so will need to reduce prices for consumers to attract them and stay in business. They will need to pass on the impact of this lowered revenue to the various costs, safety cost being one of them. We need to show that such an impact on safety cost might not be exerted.
I could not imagine any weaken statement as such and so moved onto the options after getting the jist of the passage and the idea that will be brought forward by a weaken statement.

A) If consumers look and weigh both cost and safety record of an airline, it becomes difficult for the airline to let go on safety inspections because this might make its safety record go bad. The consumers will then not fly with it and that is something that surely the airline won't want. Its a possible weaken statement as it gives us an idea that safety costs might not be reduced.

B) Agreed, but even if we know that not all mechanical problems cannot be found in a safety inspection, does it mean that safety inspections are not required. Also, does this knowledge prove that the airline will not be investing in safety just because not all problems will be found. Its difficult to predict what decision the airline will take. Incorrect choice.

C) This option only retells us that now there are many planes flying in air and provides hint that the competition amongst airlines may increase. This fact is already known to us. There exists no link to the conclusion. Incorrect choice.

D) Again, this option provides hint that the competition amongst airlines is too bad. Is it not probable then that safety cost might be reduced. I think it sort of supports the conclusion made. Incorrect choice.

E) What was the interest of airlines in the past should logically have no impact on what it will do in a situation of the present. Certainly has no link and is incorrect.

Correct choice should be A.

The correct answer - A

Passage Analysis:
- Abolition of regulation of airfares (prices) by the government has increased competition among airlines
- Author's claim: This will eventually lead to compromises in airline safety
- Author's logic: Anxiety to reduce fares in a competitive market will tempt airline companies to reduce cost by compromising safety (lesser safety inspections, less routine maintenance work)

What do we need to do? Weaken the prediction that de-regulation of airfares will ultimately compromise airline safety?

Prethinking:
What new information will weaken our belief in the notion that with abolition of fare regulation, airline companies will compromise airline safety?


The core logic of the author is that airlines will reduce fares by compromising safety. The underlying reason for reducing fares is to attract more customers. But what if customers are at least as safety conscious as they are price conscious, if not more?

In such a case, safety aspects are the customers top priority. This would reduce our belief that airlines will compromise safety just so as to be able to reduce fares.

Option Choice Analysis:

(A) Consumers select an airline as much on the basis of its safety record as on the basis of its fares.
Correct. as per prethinking. This reduces our belief in the given prediction.

(B) There are a number of mechanical problems that cannot be detected in the routine inspection of aircraft.
This tells us that even routine inspections are not perfect. But does this tell us that routine inspections are useless, better avoided (companies may as well save the cost in such a case)? No. Even given option B, several other safety issues may be avoided by doing routine inspections, which indicates that routine inspections are useful. It strengthens the belief that companies will continue to do routine inspections, rather than weaken.

(C) The amount of commercial air traffic has increased significantly since the regulation of airfares was abolished.
This only indicates that more customers may be using planes (assuming the increase in air traffic corresponds to an increase in customer demand). But this tells us nothing about the safety aspect, and whether safety was compromised to save costs. Irrelevant to the conclusion

(D) The number of airline bankruptcies has increased since the regulation of airfares was abolished.
This may at some level indicate that airline companies, in a bid to be competitive may have slashed prices to kill out competition, leading to some bankruptcies. But this again tells us nothing about the safety aspect. Was safety compromised to reduce cost? Which is why it is not relevant to the conclusion.

(E) When airfares were regulated, airlines were more inclined to invest in the development of new aircraft.
This tells us where the airlines wanted to invest their money. This is not really related to where the airlines wanted to reduce costs, which is what the argument is all about. Irrelevant.

Hope this helps.
Regards
Harsha

Don't really convinced with How B is not the correct choice.
Because conclusion if safety is comprised because of reduced inspection, in B it says inspection do not really detect all problems.
So customer safety is not really compromised isn't it?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.