WillGetIt wrote:
Proposed new safety rules for the 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.
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)
close
30 May 2022, 15:01
), but the argument tells us explicitly that the number of flights will decrease by 10%. Wrong.
