Since the early 1990s, many airliners have been equipped with telephon

Question

Since the early 1990s, many airliners have been equipped with telephones for passenger use. However, the telephones are expensive for passengers to use and their use has declined, especially since cell phones have become more prevalent. Nevertheless, since airlines collect a portion of the charge for each call made without having to pay anything for the telephone equipment, which is owned and maintained by telephone companies, airlines clearly still benefit financially from the telephones.

In drawing its conclusion, the argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A. The proportion of the charge for an in-flight telephone call that goes to the airline has not declined since the early 1990s.

B. Despite the decline in usage, the in-flight telephones remain profitable for the telephone companies that own and maintain them.

C. The telephone equipment does not weigh enough to make a material difference in the fuel consumption of airliners in which it is installed.

D. Even passengers who rarely or never use the in-flight phones prefer that airliners be equipped with them.

E. The passengers who still use in-flight telephones are primarily those who are not carrying cell phones.

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Since the early 1990s, many airliners have been equipped with telephones for passenger use. However, the telephones are expensive for passengers to use, and their use has declined, especially since cell phones have become more prevalent. Nevertheless, since airlines collect a portion of the charge for each call made without having to pay anything for the telephone equipment, which is owned and maintained by telephone companies, airlines clearly still benefit financially from the telephones.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

airlines clearly still benefit financially from the telephones

The support for the conclusion is the following:

airlines collect a portion of the charge for each call made without having to pay anything for the telephone equipment

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since airlines generate revenue without having to pay for the telephone equipment used to generate the revenue, airlines benefit financially, meaning, basically., make a profit, by having the phones on their planes.

In drawing its conclusion, the argument depends on assuming which of the following?

The correct answer will state an assumption necessary for the evidence to support the conclusion.

A. The proportion of the charge for an in-flight telephone call that goes to the airline has not declined since the early 1990s.

To eliminate this choice, we need to notice that, even if the proportion of the charge for an in-flight telephone call that goes to the airline HAS declined since the early 1990s, airlines still collect a portion of the charge for each call made.

So, regardless of whether the proportion of the charge that goes to the airlines has declined, it still makes sense to conclude that airlines benefit financially from having the phones. After all, since the airlines don't pay anything for the telephone equipment, even if they don't get much revenue from the telephones, as long as they get some revenue, having the phones could benefit them financially.

Eliminate.

B. Despite the decline in usage, the in-flight telephones remain profitable for the telephone companies that own and maintain them.

The conclusion of the argument is that airlines benefit financially from the telephones.

This choice does not have to be true for that conclusion to follow from evidence. After all, even if the telephones do NOT remain profitable for telephone companies, they could still be a source of financial benefits for airlines.

Now, it's true that, if the telephones are not profitable for telephone companies, telephone companies may not continue to maintain phones in planes.

All the same, given that, as the passage indicates, the phones are currently in planes, they could be profitable for the airlines even if they are not for telephone companies.

So, the argument works even if this choice is not true.

Eliminate.

C. The telephone equipment does not weigh enough to make a material difference in the fuel consumption of airliners in which it is installed.

This choice is interesting.

After all, the conclusion is "airlines clearly still benefit financially from the telephones."

So, what if this choice is not true and the telephone equipment DOES weigh enough to make a material difference in fuel consumption? In that case, it's not clear that airlines benefit financially from the telephones. After all, in that case, it could be that the cost associated with the additional fuel consumption caused by having the telephones offsets any revenue the airlines get by having the telephones.

Thus, in that case, airlines may not benefit financially from having the telephones even though they collect a portion of the charge without having to pay for the equipment.

So, for the argument to work, this choice must be true.

Keep.

D. Even passengers who rarely or never use the in-flight phones prefer that airliners be equipped with them.

The argument doesn't rely on this assumption about the preferences of passengers who do not use the phones.

After all, regardless of what these passengers prefer, it could still be the case that, since airlines get revenue by having the phones but don't have to pay for them, airlines benefit financially by having the phones on their planes.

Eliminate.

E. The passengers who still use in-flight telephones are primarily those who are not carrying cell phones.

This choice may be tempting if we're not clear regarding what we're looking for. After all, this choice is plausible. So, if we see that this choice is plausible and forget that we need a necessary assumption, we might choose it.

At the same time, this choice is incorrect. After all, we don't need a choice that's just plausible. We need a choice that states an assumption on which the argument depends, and the argument doesn't depend on any particular passengers using the phones. After all, as long as someone uses the phones, the airlines get a portion of the charges and thus may benefit financially.

So, regardless of whether this choice is true, the argument works.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  C

Aim4gmat2024 · Answer

The argument states that airlines have a win-win situation , in regards to telephone on a airline. 
1. They will get money if anyone makes a call
2. They wont have any loss even if lesser people make calls, as its maintained by the telephone company

However the above argument depends on the assumption that airlines isnt being affected in terms of weight of equipment used for the telephone . Therefore the answer is C

GMATkid1997 · Answer

for AC "D", can't we assume that since passengers prefer that planes be equiped with telehpone, so the airplanes with telephones can charge more/get more customers => financially benefit?

Or is this too much of an assumption?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

D is something we might figure is true in real life, although it's hard to be sure. But watch out--that's not our task at all! On an assumption question, we're trying to figure out which statement NEEDS to be true for the argument to work. That's why they use the wording "depends on" in the question. The problem with D is that it isn't needed. The author is saying that airlines benefit financially as long as someone uses the phones. That could be true regardless of whether anyone prefers for there to be a phone on the plane. Even if 99% of passenger neither know nor care whether there's a phone, the airlines could still profit if the remaining 1% make a call. However, if the phones cost more in fuel than they earn in fees, then they might not be profitable at all!

GMATkid1997

for AC "D", can't we assume that since passengers prefer that planes be equiped with telehpone, so the airplanes with telephones can charge more/get more customers => financially benefit?

Or is this too much of an assumption?

sarthak1701 · Answer

Airlines financially benefit since they don't have to fund the telephone equipment but still earn a portion of the revenue from the calls made. But what if there was a way in which the telephone might be hurting the airlines financially? Anything that causes more financial burden than it provides benefit will negate the argument. Therefore, C.

GMATkid1997 · Answer

Thanks Dimirty

I'm trying to apply the negation techinique

Option C would become => The telephones DO make a material difference in weight/fuel consumption

However, does this destroy the argument? IMO, no. Because it could still be the case that revenue > costs, making it financially profitable

If the AC stated that: The costs associated with extra fuel consumption due to telephones are larger than the revenues => then I would say that this is the correct AC

Looking forward to what your thoughts are on this

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

GMATkid1997 
 
When we negate an assumption, it doesn't have to disprove the conclusion. It just has to break the link between premise and conclusion. The argument relies on the idea that the airlines get revenue from these phones without having to pay anything. However, if C is false, they DO have to pay something. Sure, the phones could still be worth it, but the conclusion is now in doubt. The phones now have to bring in more revenue than they cost in fuel, and we don't know whether that's the case. The argument is now broken in the sense that the conclusion does not clearly follow from the premises.

siya1998 · Answer

Can anyone please tell why is C the answer? The fuel consumption is nowhere mentioned in the passage. The conclusion: Airlines still financially benefit from telephones. Premises/Evidence - Airlines collect a portion of charge for each call without having to pay anything for telephone equipment.
Assumption should be E. Since people who arent using telephones arent carry cellphones, airlines gets a portion from them and since they dont pay anything for the equipment, the entire money goes to the airlines. If the telephone equipment's weight had been high, it wouldnt have been used even in 1990s as at that time it would still have made a difference to the fuel consumption costs.

bb · Answer

Hi. The conclusion we have is this:   airlines clearly still benefit financially from the telephones.

So any assumption that impacts this conclusion is what we are looking for. E) is changing its focus to the consumers and passengers. It is more unrelated to the argument than C. 
We are looking for something financial and something related to the benefit. There are multiple assumptions by the way, some are big and some are small, but your goal is to spot the conclusion and check if the assumption is connected to it or not.

Sneha_0410 · Answer

MartyMurray

Hey Marty,

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that Option C makes more sense now. However, I originally selected Option D because I was considering the possibility that some passengers might choose an airline simply because it offers in-flight telephone service. Even if they never actually use the phones, they may view the feature as an added benefit. If that attracts more customers, the airline could generate additional revenue, making the service profitable regardless of its usage rate.

Could you please help me identify why my line of reasoning does not support Option D?

Since the early 1990s, many airliners have been equipped with telephon

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

Since the early 1990s, many airliners have been equipped with telephon

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