rohitgoel15 wrote:
Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government’s decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.
Which one of the following is assumption on which the consumer activist’s argument depends?
(A) Before the recent change in regulatory policy, there was no advantage in having easy access to large metropolitan airport.
(B) When any sizable group of consumers is seriously disadvantaged by a change in government policy, that change should be reversed.
(C) Government regulation of industry almost always works to the advantage of consumers.
(D) At the time of the regulatory change, the major airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes at least in part because of government requirements.
(E) Regional airlines lack the resources to provide consumers with service of the same quality as that provided by the major airlines.
KAPLAN OFFICIAL SOLUTION:
The consumer activist claims that deregulation worked to the disadvantage of everyone without access to a major airport. Why? Because the removal of government regulations allowed major airlines to abandon unprofitable routes “as they promptly did.” That means, as (D) points out, that the regulations had been to some degree responsible for the fact that the airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes. Use the denial test; if the regulations weren’t partly responsible, then their removal wouldn’t have caused a wholesale abandonment of the unprofitable routes.
(A) The activist claims that deregulation created new disadvantages for those without access to major airports, but needn’t assume that before deregulation there were no disadvantages for those without such access.
(B) The activist needn’t assume anything about what should be done, since he never addresses that concern in his argument; moreover (B)’s claim about “any sizable group of consumers” is clearly too general in scope.
(C) is also too general; the activist says that in this case deregulation created disadvantages, but needn’t assume that regulation “almost always” is advantageous.
(E) The activist’s argument never mentioned “regional airlines” so you can be pretty sure he’s not assuming anything about them. Moreover, the argument doesn’t discuss “quality of service” but concentrates on access to service.