Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen

Question

Proposed new safety rules for Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. The city’s operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.

The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

(A) There are no periods of the day during which the interval between flights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed.

(B) Few, if any, of the tourists who use the Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach City itself.

(C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

(D) Increasing the minimum time between takeoffs is the only way to achieve necessary safety improvements without a large expenditure by the city government on airport enhancements.

(E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per flight.

OG2017, CR628, P534

Beach City Airport

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase argument depends on assuming in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

new rules = ↑ time between takeoffs = ↓ flights

↓ flights = ↓ tourists = ↓ operating budget

The argument depends on a series of connections: if one thing decreases, then another will also decrease. Note that if any one of these connections were invalid—for instance, if the decrease in flights didn’t actually decrease the number of tourists—the argument would no longer be valid.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the goal is to pick a statement on which the argument’s logic depends. The right answer will be something the author must believe to be true in order for the argument to be reasonable.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This answer choice appears to support the connection between increased time between takeoffs and a decreased number of flights. If there were currently ‘quiet periods’ at the airport, couldn’t extra flights be squeezed in, to avoid reducing the total number of flights while still obeying the rules? However, the argument already specifies that the new rules will result in at least a 10% decrease in the number of flights. This is a statement of fact, so no further assumptions need to be made in order to support it.

(B) Even if Beach City tourists represented a very small fraction of those arriving in the city by airplane, a decrease in the number of flights would still decrease their numbers proportionally, resulting in a lower operating budget.

(C) If the reduction will not consist mostly of low spenders, then it will consist mostly of high spenders. A reduction in the number of tourists who spend a lot would have a large effect on the operating budget. Therefore, this answer choice strengthens the argument. However, although this is a strengthener, it isn’t an assumption, because it doesn’t have to be true in order for the logic of the argument to hold. Imagine a scenario in which 10% of the tourists spent $1 in Beach City, while the remaining 90% spent $1000 each. Even if the 10% who spent $1 were those who stopped visiting due to a lack of flights, that still represents an overall decrease in revenue. Although this answer choice would strengthen the argument, it isn’t necessary to the argument, since it could be false and the argument could still hold.

(D) It doesn’t matter whether there are other ways to achieve safety improvements. The conclusion addresses only the effects of this particular improvement, not why it was selected or whether it was superior to the alternatives.

(E) CORRECT . This must be true in order for the argument to be logically sound. If it weren’t true, then the number of passengers per flight would increase and it would no longer be possible to conclude that the overall number of tourists coming to Beach City would decrease. In this case, the operating budget might not decrease after all.

sayantanc2k · Answer

If the number of tourists increases, then the tourist spending also increases. Moreover it is already stated in the passage that "most of the tourists come by plane". So an increase in number of tourists also implies an increase in number of passengers.

BillyZ · Answer

Beach City Airport
 
  Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase  argument depends on assuming  in the question stem indicates that this is a  Find the Assumption  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

new rules = ↑ time between takeoffs = ↓ flights
↓  flights = ↓ tourists = ↓ operating budget

The argument depends on a series of connections: if one thing decreases, then another will also decrease. Note that if any one of these connections were invalid—for instance, if the decrease in flights didn’t actually decrease the number of tourists—the argument would no longer be valid.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the goal is to pick a statement on which the argument’s logic depends. The right answer will be something the author must believe to be true in order for the argument to be reasonable.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This answer choice appears to support the connection between increased time between takeoffs and a decreased number of flights. If there were currently ‘quiet periods’ at the airport, couldn’t extra flights be squeezed in, to avoid reducing the total number of flights while still obeying the rules? However, the argument already specifies that the new rules will result in at least a 10% decrease in the number of flights. This is a statement of fact, so no further assumptions need to be made in order to support it.

(B) Even if Beach City tourists represented a very small fraction of those arriving in the city by airplane, a decrease in the number of flights would still decrease their numbers proportionally, resulting in a lower operating budget.

(C) If the reduction will not consist mostly of low spenders, then it  will  consist mostly of high spenders. A reduction in the number of tourists who spend a lot would have a large effect on the operating budget. Therefore, this answer choice strengthens the argument. However, although this is a strengthener, it isn’t an assumption, because it doesn’t have to be true in order for the logic of the argument to hold. Imagine a scenario in which 10% of the tourists spent $1 in Beach City, while the remaining 90% spent $1000 each. Even if the 10% who spent $1 were those who stopped visiting due to a lack of flights, that still represents an overall decrease in revenue. Although this answer choice would strengthen the argument, it isn’t necessary to the argument, since it could be false and the argument could still hold.

(D) It doesn’t matter whether there are other ways to achieve safety improvements. The conclusion addresses only the effects of this particular improvement, not why it was selected or whether it was superior to the alternatives.

(E) CORRECT . This must be true in order for the argument to be logically sound. If it weren’t true, then the number of passengers per flight would increase and it would no longer be possible to conclude that the overall number of tourists coming to Beach City  would  decrease. In this case, the operating budget might not decrease after all.

ArathyA · Answer

Passage Analysis 
 • Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between take-offs from the airport.
  o New safety rules for the Beach city airport are put forward.
o These rules will increase the minimum time gap to be maintained between consecutive take-offs of flights from that airport.  
• In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer ﬂights than currently use the airport daily.
  o As a result of the new rules, the number of flights that can use the airport each day will be 10% lesser than the current count.  
• The city’s operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. 
  o One of the main sources of income of the city is the taxation on tourist spending.
o Majority of the tourists arrive by flights.  
• Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.
  o Due to these reasons, the author concludes that if the new suggested safety rules are implemented, the income to the city’s operating budget will decrease.  
  Conclusion: The proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the city’s operating budget. 
 
 Question Stem Analysis 
We are required to identify the assumption that has to be made if the conclusion should hold true.

Pre-thinking 
 Falsification Question 
In what scenario is it possible that the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will not reduce the revenue available for the city’s operating budget?
Given that
 • Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between take-offs from the airport.
• The airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer ﬂights than currently use the airport daily. 
• The city’s operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane.
 
 Thought Process 
The author concludes that, the proposed new safety rules that leads to a limit in the number of flights that can use the airport per day, which is ten percent lower than the current traffic in the airport, will lead to a decrease in the income to the city’s budget, as the revenue to the operating budget is heavily dependent on taxing the expenditure by tourists in the city, majority of whom arriveS through the airport. The crux of the falsification of the argument lies on the various ways that can neutralize the impact of the decrease in number of flights at the airport per day. This can be about the number of tourists per flight, the amount spent per tourist and the taxation of spending.

Falsification Condition#1 
What if the number of tourists who arrive per flight increase significantly such that the total number of tourists who arrive daily is not decreased? In that case the premises remain intact, but the conclusion cannot hold.
 Assumption#1 
The number of tourists who arrive per flight will not increase significantly such that the total number of tourists who arrive daily is not decreased.

Falsification Condition #2 
What if the amount of expenditure per tourist at Beach City increases significantly after the new rules are imposed? Then there will be no reason for the operating budget to be affected.
 Assumption#2 
The amount of expenditure per tourist at Beach City will not increase significantly after the new rules are imposed.

Falsification Condition #3 
What if the taxes levied on tourist spending could be further increased or new such taxes be introduced without affecting the tourist inflow? Here also the premises remain intact, but the conclusion breaks down.
 Assumption#3 
It is not possible to increase the taxes levied on tourist spending or introduce new such taxes without affecting the tourist inflow.

Answer Choice Analysis 
(A) There are no periods of the day during which the interval between ﬂights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed.
 INCORRECT 
We are told that the maximum number of flights that can be accommodated daily if the new rules are adopted will go lower than the current number by 10 percent. Redistribution of take-off times cannot be a solution here. Therefore, this assumption is not relevant for this question.

(B) Few, if any, of the tourists who use the Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach City itself.
 INCORRECT 
This option says that nearly every tourist who use Beach City airport have the city as their main destination. What we are concerned about is the revenue to the city’s operating budget from tourist spending. In the case of this assumption, the relative share of tourists who use the airport to visit beach city is what is being talked about. Therefore, it is an incorrect choice.

(C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.
 INCORRECT 
If the total number of tourists(T) who arrive through the airport are classified to those who spend a lot at beach city(S) and those who spend relatively little at beach city(L), this assumption states that the decrease in T is mainly due to the decrease in S and not much due to the decrease in L. This assumption cannot lead to the conclusion if the number of people in L group is very large compared to the number of people in S group. Hence this is an incorrect choice.

(D) Increasing the minimum time between take-offs is the only way to achieve necessary safety improvements without a large expenditure by the city government on airport enhancements.
 INCORRECT 
The reason for proposing such a rule is not a matter of concern for us as our conclusion is regarding the impact on the operating budget of the city if the rule is implemented. Hence, this is an incorrect choice.

(E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight.
 CORRECT 
This assumption is in line with our pre-thought assumption 1 and hence the correct answer.

AnirudhChalla · Answer

Though I went ahead with E, I do have a doubt. In this particular problem,
Say the number of flights were initially 150, each with a capacity of 1000 pax. So the number of passengers incoming is 1,50,000
Now, there is a reduction of 10% in the no. of flights i.e 0.9*150= 135.
Say the airlines increased the number of passengers from 1000 to 1050. So now the number of passenger incoming is 1050*135 = 141,750, which is still less than the initial number.

So the argument stands still even when option E is negated. Shouldn't the argument fail when the assumption is negated ?

Please help me out  GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo   nightblade354   eakabuah   mira93   VeritasKarishma

KarishmaB · Answer

It is logical that if the flight capacity is increased to negate the effect of fewer flights, it will do that.

FlyingWhale · Answer

GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo

Hi experts, Can you please explain why B is wrong? I am still very confused.

B. Few, if any, of the tourists who use the Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach City itself.

this is my though process, if most of the tourists use Beach City airport as a transition stop, then it means on those flights, not many are tourists who actually were to spent money and contribute to the local revenue. So you kinda have to assume that.

GMATNinja · Answer

We know from the passage that Beach City's operating budget "depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane." Based on this, the author argues that reducing the number of daily flights would reduce the city's revenue.

It doesn't matter whether those flights are  exclusively  filled with people who are heading for Beach City. Let's say only a small fraction of passengers are going to stay in Beach City -- well, according to the passage those passengers generate a bunch of revenue for the city. Reducing the number of daily flights would still reduce the number of passengers going to Beach City, and this would cut into the city's revenue. So, the author's argument still stands even if the planes aren't packed with Beach City tourists.

Because the author's argument holds whether (B) is true or not, (B) is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

Compare that with (E):
 
The author argues that fewer flights means fewer passengers which means less revenue.

But what if fewer flights does NOT mean that fewer passengers actually arrive in Beach City?

If the airlines are able to pack more tourists into each plane, then the reduced number of flights won't result in reduced revenue for the city. So, we HAVE to assume that the new safety rules won't result in an increased number of passengers per flight.

Because (E) MUST be true in order for the author's argument to make any sense, (E) is an assumption on which the argument depends.

I hope that helps!

warrior1991 · Answer

Option A,if we negate, says that there is a chance that 10 % reduction can be compensated during the day.

AndrewN   It is given as a fact in the argument that if earlier 100 flights operated in a day, now that number will come down to 90.
 We cannot question the fact that is given in the argument.  
 I rejected option A based on my above (highlighted in red) analysis.

Am I correct ??

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  warrior1991 . All you would have to do to negate (A) is change  no  in  no periods  to  some . You are correct in saying that a premise or fact cannot be refuted in a CR passage: only a conclusion based on such a premise may be debated. The problem with (A) is that it does not directly touch on the argument itself:  the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget . Whether, during certain hours, fewer flights may be able to take off (thereby increasing the interval between them) is an unrelated concern. Ultimately, a reduction in  total  flights per day is at stake, so a necessary assumption must operate within this constraint, shedding light  directly  on the link between the number of tourists who can visit and spend money and thereby contribute to the city's operating budget.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question.

- Andrew

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

Assumptions often do not have exact numerical values.

Point: If you reduce the number of flights by 10%, number of tourists will reduce. (by what percent will tourists reduce, he doesn't say.)

Counter point: You are assuming that reduction in flights will not lead to more tourists in each flight (whether the flights increase their capacity or are running below capacity so more tourists will fit into each plane).

You don't need to say that increase in number of tourists in each flight must be 10% (actually slightly more). We don't know what will be the decrease in the number of tourists if flights reduce by 10%.

mSKR · Answer

By removing the information that most passengers come by plane ( maybe they come by Train, Bus ,private vehicles). Can the answer become C with this change?
C has  relatively  and argument has  heavily , won't this directly influence our conclusion now?

Please give your opinion  VeritasKarishma   AndrewN

thanks!

AndrewN · Answer

You may know this about me by now,  mSKR , but I generally discourage tinkering with official questions. Particularly in passage-based questions, if you change the passage, you have fundamentally altered the linear logic that holds that passage together, and any argument you wish to make could then be tailored to your alteration. In this case, if you remove the part about most tourists coming to Beach City by plane, then why would we care, necessarily, about the proposed new safety rules concerning the airport? GMAC™ invests enough time and money to ensure that these questions hold up to scrutiny. If you have read through the thread and the answer choices, correct or incorrect, make sense to you, then I would suggest you let them be.

This is not to discourage you from exploring different ways to arrive at a correct conclusion. On the Quant side of things, I often encourage people on the forum to explore alternative ways of arriving at a solution. (In fact, I wrote  one such post  earlier today.) I believe that exploring such alternatives demonstrates proficiency with a particular topic, and that the probability will decrease that such a person will have a deer-in-the-headlights moment if, on test day, he or she blanks on a formula. Likewise, I would encourage you in Verbal to see if you can find multiple ways of disproving incorrect answers to arrive at a correct one. Sometimes a word can make all the difference, and maybe others have not drawn attention to it yet. (You may remember one such post that I wrote recently  in response to  that difficult CR question on Renaissance buildings in Palitito, in which I focused on the word  come  in one answer choice versus the phrase  they are in  in another.) Have fun and see what you can find. The questions are not fully discussed simply because the community or Experts may have reached a consensus.

I know this might not be the response you were hoping for, but I always aim to point you and others in what I think is the right direction.

- Andrew

KarishmaB · Answer

No point thinking on these lines. A slight change in the argument, even one word, can change everything. The options are written keeping every word of the argument in mind such that exactly one option is correct and all four are incorrect. It should not become a case of "strength of correctness". That is why making high quality CR questions is a difficult task. 
From a student's perspective, if-then changes in CR questions will only lead to more confusion. Stick to evaluating every word as given.

Vegita · Answer

KarishmaB

Curious to know what you think about this. I have seen many arguments which use the world ' significantly ' in their main conclusions. If this argument were to use the word ' significantly ', then would option C be correct as well?

Conclusion: Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will  significantly  reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.

However, the conclusion has not used the word 'significantly'. Therefore, even if there's a slight/not a significant reduction in the revenue the argument will hold true.

Negating option C.

(C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

Even if the reduction in revenue is going to happen from the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City, the revenue will decrease- might not be a significant decrease but is still a decrease. Therefore, the argument still holds, and this option is not an assumption.

ThatDudeKnows · Answer

Conclusion Rules --> lower revenue Why? Rules --> lower flights Flights are how tourists get here Taxes on tourist spending drives operating budget So we end up with some version of: rules --> lower flight count --> lower tourist count --> lower tax revenue --> lower operating budget (A) There are no periods of the day during which the interval between ﬂights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed. This answer choice is designed to make us wonder if we could add flights to offset those lost (great idea to try to replace the lost passengers...stay tuned!

), but the argument tells us explicitly that the number of flights will decrease by 10%. Wrong. (B) Few, if any, of the tourists who use the Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach City itself. We aren't told the degree to which these people may or may not impact Beach City revenues. How does fewer flights change this? The argument is binary in nature (either there is a reduction in revenues or there isn't) not a matter of severity. Wrong. (C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City. So we are still losing tourists? And they still spend in Beach City? Just because it made things less bad doesn't mean it got rid of the problem. The argument is binary in nature (either there is a reduction in revenues or there isn't) not a matter of severity. Wrong. (D) Increasing the minimum time between takeoffs is the only way to achieve necessary safety improvements without a large expenditure by the city government on airport enhancements. Does nothing to the conclusion that we're going to see lower revenues. Wrong. (E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight. Wait, let's try the negation test. You're telling me that if we decrease the number of planes, they can just put more people on each plane? So the same number of tourists can still get here? By Jeeves, that's brilliant!! We won't lose any money at all!! Negating E kills the argument. The confusion in the thread seems to mainly be about answer choice C. The REALLY important take away here is that some arguments are set up as a matter of degree and some are set up as binary/absolute. In this one, the conclusion is that there will A REDUCTION in revenues. Any answer choice that lessens that reduction but doesn't remove it isn't enough. We need something that at least gives the possibility of removal.

KarishmaB · Answer

Had the conclusion used the word 'significantly,' option (C) would become relevant. Logically, it still does not make a whole lot of sense to me that how would reduced number of flights lead to fewer of only those tourists who anyway spend very little (until and unless the reduction in number of flights will lead to a huge increase in cost of flights which will deter the less well off tourist but people's spending habits are hard to judge.)
It would become a totally different question and we would need to take a call based on the available options.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

Premises:
New rules will increase the minimum time between takeoffs (say from 10 mins to 15 mins)
The airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer ﬂights than the number that operate currently. 
City’s operating budget depends on taxes generated by plane-using tourists.

Conclusion: So new rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.

To arrive at the conclusion, you are making a lot of assumptions:

1. Decrease in number of flights will actually lead to decrease in number of tourists in the city 
2. Decrease in number of tourists will actually lead to decrease in revenue (tourists will not start spending extra)
3. Decrease in tourist revenue will actually decrease revenue available for budget (it will not be compensated in another way).

Look at the options:

A There are no periods of the day during which the interval between ﬂights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed

There is a problem with (A). There could be periods of day during which interval between flights is more - say the 12 noon to 4 pm slot. But still, it is possible that the number of flights are reduced, say in the peak hours of 7 pm to 10 pm. We don't know whether it is feasible to readjust flight timings to occupy free slots. Hence, we cannot assume that there are no free slots.

(B) Few, if any, of the tourists who use the Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighboring community and not Beach City itself.

Let's negate it: There are many tourists on the Beach City airport flights who actually vacation in neighbouring communities.

Will reduction in number of flights reduce only these tourists who actually vacation in neighbouring communities? No. Perhaps neighbouring communities do not have an airport and everyone uses Beach City airport. Beach city cannot stop these people from coming in. When we decrease the number of flights, all types of passengers would reduce (because on unavailability of flights). We cannot assume an impact on only specific type of travellers. 
Hence people who are tourists in Beach City will also reduce which will reduce the budget. 
Say 100 travellers travel to Beach City each day and all 100 vacationed in Beach City. If flights reduce, only 90 will be able to travel. (assuming full flights)
But if out of 100 travellers that travel to Beach City everyday, 50 vacation in Beach City and 50 in other communities, only 45 Beach City vacationers and 45 other city vacationers will be able to travel. Number of Beach City vacationers will reduce. It doesn't matter what the initial split is. There is no suggestion that the split will change with fewer flights. 
Hence this is not correct.

(C) If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

The conclusion says that the revenue will reduce. Even if some tourists spend relatively little, if they don't come it will reduce the revenue. So whether the reduction in the number of tourists is in those who spend a lot or those who spend less or a mix of both, there will be some kind of reduction in our revenue. 
Hence, this is not an assumption.

Negate it: If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in Beach City.

Even if less spending tourist numbers reduce, it will still lead to reduction in revenue. Hence it doesn't break our conclusion.

(D) Increasing the minimum time between takeoffs is the only way to achieve necessary safety improvements without a large expenditure by the city government on airport enhancements.

The argument is not assuming that this plan is the only possible plan or only acceptable plan. We are discussing whether revenue will reduce or not if this plan is implemented.

E The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight.
This is our point 1 given above. We are assuming that decrease in number of flights will lead to decrease in number of tourists. So we are assuming that the reduced flights will not carry increased number of passengers. 
This is correct.

Answer (E)

something689 · Answer

I have a similar doubt. Someone please clarify this. Stuck between C and E. In an assumption question we have to take the premises into account as the there is a jump from *premise* to conclusion. The passage states that the operating budget depends *heavily* on the taxes generated by tourist *spending*. I took that *spending* into account so chose C over E. While, for C to be correct, it also relies on an implicit assumption that the reduction of tourists wouldn't take into account the reduction of few tourists who might spend a lot, for E to be correct, it also has to rely on an implicit assumption that the increase in passengers per flight would be at least as much as the number of passengers lost per *flight*. Let's say a flight can fit 300 passengers, and most flights are at least 3/4th full or entirely full, now if we reduce the number of entire *flights* by 10%, isn't it unreasonable to assume that the remaining flights to could fit those passengers?

KarishmaB · Answer

Consider this - Any reduction in the number of tourists will lead to reduced revenue. Every tourist spends money as per his or her desire but some money HAS TO BE spent by everyone. They need to stay somewhere, go to places, pay entry ticket at tourist spots, eat etc. Someone may choose an economical hotel, public means of transport and not shop but even they will need to spend some money.
If number of tourists increase, the revenue will increase, whether slightly or a lot is up for debate. One tourist's shopping plans will not depend on how many total tourists there are, right?

So (C) doesn't work at all. Even if the decrease comes from those who spend relatively little, they still spend. So revenue WILL decrease.

On the other hand, (E) creates a possibility that number of tourists will not decrease. If rest of the flights accommodate all people, then number of tourists may not decrease at all and hence the revenue may not decrease.

Answer (E)

JayBKK · Answer

The conclusion concerns  the decrease in revenue  from taxing tourists.

If the airline responds to this newly enacted policy by increasing the number of passengers per flight, there is a chance that the overall number of tourists will not be affected.

Thus, this assumption about the airline response must hold.

Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen

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

Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen

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