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 KarishmaBI 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.