Last visit was: 23 Jun 2024, 21:01 It is currently 23 Jun 2024, 21:01
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Difficulty: 555-605 Level,    Assumption,                               
Show Tags
Hide Tags
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14009
Own Kudos [?]: 35413 [0]
Given Kudos: 5824
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2021
Posts: 154
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 259
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2020
Posts: 90
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 1526
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 11 May 2022
Posts: 1085
Own Kudos [?]: 722 [0]
Given Kudos: 81
Send PM
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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



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.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2022
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen [#permalink]
SlikRick wrote:
I agree that E is the best answer. However, I am struggling with one silly exception...

The original argument discusses how the city's revenue is closely tied to tourist spending. If the number of passengers increases, that doesn't necessarily equate to tourist spending does it?

Am I reading into this too much? I have a tendency to turn assumption questions into weaken / strengthen questions...


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?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Posts: 63
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 163
Send PM
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen [#permalink]
This is the solution I came up with:

Conc: The proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the 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 answers the question - "Are there any delays significantly greater than the min. time allowed between takeoffs due the new safety rules?". If the overall delays are still kept to a minimum in accordance to the new safety rules, leading to 10% fewer flights, it still doesn't explain the decrease in available revenue. This kinda just restates what we already know/presume. Drop

(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. - Answers the question - "How many tourists use/spend time at Beach City Airport?" Whether the answer to this is a lot or not many, doesn't explain why the revenue should fall. Beach City could be a transit to an extravagant destination that could attract richest few or a popular family destination attracting a lot of people. In either case, a 10% reduction in traffic might be substantial loss in such cases. So this isn't a must be true assumption. Drop

(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. Sounds nice. Let's negate. The reduction in tourist numbers will be mainly those who spend little money in Beach City Airport, therefore, the revenue available will be reduced. Yup, can co-exist. Whether the decrease in revenue is substantial or not, it's still a reduction. Drop

(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. Answers the question - "Are the new regulations necessary?" Whatever the answer doesn't affect the conclusion of the passage. Drop

(E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per flight. Tight. This means that the decrease in flights is equal to a decrease in the footfall in the Beach City Airport. Let's negate for extra surety. "The response would include an increase in number of passengers per flight." This definitely breaks the conclusion. Keep­
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 1111
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen [#permalink]
 
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.

­
Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB

I am highly confused with Option A elimination, saw different replies but need your help.
Can we approach this option mathematically to eliminate it?

My thinking is - if we negate A, there are some periods of the day during which the interval between flights taking off from the airport is significantly greater than the currently allowed.

First, by common sense, on the time interval between flights, the "currently allowed" should be different from the "new proposed".
Let's say "currently allowed" = 15 mins, "new proposed time" = 30 mins

Per negated A, some flights that have significant interval time greater than currently allowed can have either less or longer time than the new proposed time (30 mins) so we can have different plausible scenarios.

Scenario-1:
Some flights have a longer time than the proposed time which is let's say 45 mins 
In this, flights won't reduce once the new proposed time is implemented, hence, revenues won't be impacted and the conclusion is destroyed.

Scenario-2:
Some flights have less time than the proposed time which is let's say 20 mins 
In this, flights will reduce once the new proposed time is implemented, hence, revenues will decline and the conclusion still stands.

Please let me know if this is also the intuitive way to approach and eliminate this tricky option.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen [#permalink]
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6954 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
821 posts