Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I

First, let's break down the situation...

• Arnold had a reservation, but he was denied a seat because the airline overbooked the flight.
• As a result, he had to take a later flight and missed an important meeting.
• According to Arnold, the airline should pay compensation for denying him a seat when he had a reservation. The fact that the flight was canceled due to bad weather is irrelevant, because either way the airline screwed up.
• But according to Jamie, the airline should NOT have to pay because Arnold would have missed his meeting regardless of whether the airline overbooked the flight. So, yes, the airline screwed up, but in the end the overbooking had no impact on the final result (Arnold would have missed the meeting either way). Since the overbooking had no impact, the airline has no obligation to pay.

We need a principle that justifies Jamie's position. This principle is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations_____


This principle would actually support Arnold's point of view. Even if the airline had not overbooked his original flight, he STILL would have been forced to take a later flight. According to (E), Arnold SHOULD receive compensation in this case.


If the airline had NOT overbooked the original, Arnold still would have been forced to take a later flight (because of bad weather). According to Jamie, this is not sufficient for compensation. He should only receive compensation if he would NOT have been forced to take a later flight. This is exactly what (C) is saying, in a confusing way:

If the airline had not overbooked the original, would the passenger have been forced to take a later flight?

1) If yes (i.e. because of bad weather), then no compensation.
2) If no, then compensation.

According to this principle, Arnold should NOT receive compensation because his situation fits with #1 above.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Basically what Jamie says to Arnold is that in this particular case, it's not the airline's fault that Arnold had to take a later flight. However, it can be inferred that if Arnold had missed his flight because of the airline's fault, then the airline would be obligated to compensate.

(B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather ---->Not necessarily. Say, if the passenger is forced to take a later flight because they were late to the airport, the airline shouldn't have to pay. Incorrect

(D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were at the original flight is canceled due to bad weather ---->If the passenger is forced to take a later flight because the weather was bad, it is not the airline's fault. It might be that the flight was booked to capacity or even a bit under capacity but due to bad weather they weren't able to take off. Incorrect

(E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight ---->This just says that even though the airline hadn't overbooked and the passenger had to take a later flight due to some reason (maybe bad weather, technical issues with the plane, someone calling in a bomb threat etc), the airline should have to pay. In case it's not the airline's fault, according to Jamie's argument, they shouldn't have to pay. Incorrect

I was stuck between A & C. I eliminated A as follows:

(A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the flight ---->Seems a bit restrictive. This option says that if a passenger misses the flight, the airline should only compensate in cases when the flight was overbooked. What about the case when let's say the flight wasn't overbooked but the airline didn't call the passenger to tell them that the flight has been preponed by half an hour. Incorrect

Which only leaves C.

Hope that helps.

Hey eshan429,

I was stuch between E and C, and your reason to eliminate E is indeed spot on!! i get why the ans . is C. Thanks!! and you get +1 kudos

IMO A...
Jamie said the airline is not morally obligated to pay because he has been denied a seat on the earlier flight and flight has cancelled due to weather...if he has denied a flight only due to overbooking then he will get the refund.

I would say (A). According to Jamie, the airline should not be morally responsible for a flight canceled due to bad weather. But, if the airline had erred due to an overbooking, they should reimburse the passenger (or even better upgrade them to first class!).

The key to this answer is in Jamie`s final comment:

Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway.

Passenger :
1. Confirmed reservation
2. Denied entry due to overbooking
3. Forced to take later flight , missed meeting .
4. Demands refund even though original flight was cancelled.
Assumption - passenger is demanding refund for the inconvenience caused.

Jamie :
1. Says not morally obliged .
2. This specific case - the inconvenience would have been caused anyway since there was bad weather.

Assumption : since end result was the same , airline not responsible .

Closest answers are A and C .
However A covers the case already stated in the argument .
A : means yes the passenger was forced to take a later flight and that was because of overbooking . But this argument has no bearing on the original flight and it's time of departure. So this option is directly out of the passenger's argument and hence it cannot justify Jamie's reasoning as the question asks .

C : this option on the other hand clearly states that the passenger would not have taken a later flight had the flight was not overbooked. This option implicitly infers that the original flight in this case will depart on time . Therefore this option is actually option A + plus timely departure restriction on original flight .

Hence C is the right answer

good question , I hope my explanation was clear

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

this is still a gmat question because it strengthens the responding, or the conclusion from Jamie. This question is probably a LSAT question
In short, Jamie wants to say the airline compensates for its fault (overbooking)
C strengthens the above reason as it establishes the only cause why Arnold has to take another flight later.

My advice is to memorize the pattern first.

Thanks chesstitans for the explanation!

To post additional questions not already addressed in this thread, feel free to use the request verbal experts' reply button.
_________________

Here is what I think.

"Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway."

Jamie's premise: Arnold's miss of the meeting is not due to the airline's overbooking.
Jamie's conclusion: Airline is not morally obligated to compensate Arnold.

Principal: THe airline is obligated only if the customer's miss is because of overbooking.

The difference between A and C is:

A - This departures from the two facts (or one inference) in the question. First, Arnold did get rescheduled because of overbooking. However, there is no compensation supported by Jamie; 2nd, Airline may compensate if the cause is not overbooking. But this option says "if the only reason".

C - Better.

C is better because C addresses the stated principal as the above, but in a two-negative way - Arnold will not miss if the airline doesn't not overbook.

I could imagine people may get confused between A and C. The essential difference is that in A, the connection between obligation to pay and airline's overbooking is too absolute and too unique. It doesn't give give other options. After all, overbook can not be the only situation where airline is obligated to pay. A is actually part of C. But C doesn't link to A directly.

Other options:

B - "bad weather" or not doesn't matter here. Arnold can be trapped in other disasters. The question is asking for principal, not scenario. Principal is made to address multiple scenarios.

D - Same as B.

E - This breaks the connection between overbook and flight reschedule. Think about it, if the connection between both is gone, then adding either to Jamie's premise above is meaningless.

Hi GMATNinjaTwo

Could you please elaborate on choices C AND E
I read explanation above but they are not helping me out

Posted from my mobile device

How do we choose between A and C? Both look fine, but written in different ways. Can someone break it down? I can't understand the explanation one person has given above.

First, Jamie establishes that the airline is necessarily not obligated to pay compensation because of Arnold's circumstances. Therefore the lack of obligation occurs on the right hand side of the arrow in Jamie's conditional. The question stem introduces the answer choices by giving the sufficient condition that the airline is obligated to pay compensation. This formulation is ipso facto the contrapositive of Jamie's reasoning. Jamie concludes with the necessary "not morally obligated." The principle leads with the sufficient "morally obligated."

What follows must be the necessary negated sufficient condition of Jamie's conclusion. The key word is necessary. Since the answer choice must introduce a necessary condition, answer choices (A), (D), and (E) are out. All of these introduce sufficient conditions.

(B) introduces a necessary condition ("only if") but it actually negates Jamie's conclusion.

(C) introduces the correct necessary condition that the only way the airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger for a missed flight is if that flight wouldn't have been cancelled anyways due to circumstances outside the airline's control.

The answer to your first question is no, not necessarily. You have moral obligation on the right, so it's still possible because of some other reason.

There is nothing wrong with answer choice (C). Stick with what is written.

Morally responsible -> would not have been forced to take later flight in absence of overbooking

Its the most confusing question.

I will be honest. I had back in my mind that C could be right, but I couldn't understand the meaning of it as it was structured so grammatically. I chose A after a thorough evaluation of other options. Maybe if I knew the meaning of C I would have chosen it.

To be fair all the answers here look like wrong SC options

GMATNinja hi expert, your explanation is really helpful, but I am still a little bit confused. As you said: (1) If yes (i.e. because of bad weather), then no compensation; (2) If no, then compensation. So there still is a possibility of no compensation, but the question stem is "must compensate", so I think it should mention "the original flight would NOT have been cancelled by the bad weather" in the correct answer [means to eliminate (1)].
Could you plz explain further? Thanks in advance.

The question stem says that "an airline is morally obligated..." and then (C) proceeds by saying "ONLY if...." So, together, we have, "an airline is morally obligated ONLY if...." The rest of (C) then lays out the circumstances in which an airline IS obligated: when the overbooking is the ONLY reason that the passenger has to take a later flight.

In other words, (C) says that the airline is obligated when overbooking is the ONLY reason for the later flight. This may not address bad weather directly, but bad weather would be an additional reason for a later flight, and consequently, overbooking would not be the ONLY reason. So, the airline would NOT be obligated because overbooking would NOT be the ONLY reason, and (C) is the best answer choice.

I hope that clears things up!
_________________

Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight for which I had a confirmed reservation, because the airline had overbooked the flight. Since I was forced to fly on the next available flight, which did not depart until two hours later, I missed an important business meeting. Even though the flight on which I had a reservation was canceled at the last minute due to bad weather, the airline should still pay me compensation for denying me a seat on the flight.

Jamie: The airline is not morally obligated to pay you any compensation. Even if you had not been denied a seat on the earlier flight, you would have missed your business meeting anyway.

A principle that, if established, justifies Jamie's response to Arnold is that an airline is morally obligated to compensate a passenger who has been denied a seat on a flight for which the passenger has confirmed reservations_____

(A) if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight is that the airline overbooked the flight - WRONG.

(B) only if there is a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's being canceled due to bad weather - WRONG. Wreck of the choice.

(C) only if the passenger would not have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight - CORRECT.

(D) even if the only reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight were at the original flight is canceled due to bad weather - WRONG.

(E) even if the passenger would still have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked the original flight - WRONG.

I was all over the place in this one even after 4+ min - A, B and C, mostly A and C.
This is a post attempt operation of my disastrous approach.
Keywords highlighted in blue and words in green give direction to passage.
Jamie's counter is not as important as Arnold's argument since question stem(most important) goes against it and tries to take the case(in a likely scenario) where Jamie's counter would have agreed to Arnold. But do note that what(reason) makes Jamie's disagree with Arnold.

Even with a confirmed reservation, Arnold was denied seat in the earlier flight and it was because airline overbooked tickets. Arnold argues for having been compensated for denying a seat. And this argument is based on him being FORCED to take next flight that for whatever reason lead to missed key business meeting.
Finally, this claim by Arnold is valid(as per Arnold) even if the cancellation was done because of bad weather.

Therefore, its like
Denying a reserved seat ---- forcing to take another flight --- missing a business meeting ---- cancellation of flights because of bad weather.

On the other hand, Jamie simply brings the moral point and adding support to her counter by saying the bad weather would have made him miss the meeting anyway. But, here is the key issue between the two arguments that Jamie brings another point of view(morality) and considers only bad weather for justifying it. Not sure but it may also means that Jamie is fine with FORCEFUL taking another flight. However, this would have required us make some assumption, leading to some non-key issue.

So, the agreement of the Jamie can only be possible if the two factors - morality(overbooking and forceful taking of another flight in this case) and bad weather - are eliminated. Arrgghh..... Why did I not see this earlier??!!! There's always some considerations missed by counter argument - here Jamie's.

Which one of the choices does that?

Only C does.

Let me know if i have missed some of the key points OR interpreting something wrong.
_________________

is it a good question to practice from a GMAT standpoint? Thanks.