GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Jun 2018, 10:47

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 196
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 620 Q42 V33
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 29 Aug 2016, 11:17
LogicGuru1 wrote:
WillGetIt wrote:
Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs ﬁom 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.

"Please hit kudos, if you like this post"

A increases-----------------------------> B decreases ---------> C decrease
Security check time increase--------->No of flight decreases--------># of Tourist decreases
Our goal is to Maintain C (number of tourists)
A (security )cannot be tinkered with, It will stay as it is,
B (Flight delay) cannot be changed either ; BUT BUT BUT it can be modified in such a way that C (Number of tourists ) stays constant -> number of flight cannot be increased but size of the planes can be increased, so that every flight coming to the airport can carry more number of tourist whenever it arrives.

So the argument assumes that it cannot happen--> number of people in flight cannot be increased and therefore number of tourist will decrease

What options says so :--->
E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight

If you personalise any argument that you can find the errors very quickly. For example here you could have used the your knowledge of polar bear food behaviour. Polar bears sleep for 6 months and thus cannot eat anything when they are asleep. Thus to compensate for the "NO FOOD- I CANT EAT- I AM SLEEPING", the bear eat lots and lots and lots and lots of food continuously for many weeks before going to hibernation. Similarly when Number of flight is reduced, then aeroplanes should be filled with lots and lots and lots of people, so that number of tourist doesn't decrease.

If people paid more attention to your posts, then their life with CR would be easier. People do not realize that you are decoding the Matrix, here

Originally posted by felippemed on 29 Aug 2016, 10:52.
Last edited by felippemed on 29 Aug 2016, 11:17, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 609
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2016, 11:13
felippemed wrote:
LogicGuru1 wrote:
WillGetIt wrote:
Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs ﬁom 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.

"Please hit kudos, if you like this post"

A increases-----------------------------> B decreases ---------> C decrease
Security check time increase--------->No of flight decreases--------># of Tourist decreases
Our goal is to Maintain C (number of tourists)
A (security )cannot be tinkered with, It will stay as it is,
B (Flight delay) cannot be changed either ; BUT BUT BUT it can be modified in such a way that C (Number of tourists ) stays constant -> number of flight cannot be increased but size of the planes can be increased, so that every flight coming to the airport can carry more number of tourist whenever it arrives.

So the argument assumes that it cannot happen--> number of people in flight cannot be increased and therefore number of tourist will decrease

What options says so :--->
E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight

If you personalise any argument that you can find the errors very quickly. For example here you could have used the your knowledge of polar bear food behaviour. Polar bears sleep for 6 months and thus cannot eat anything when they are asleep. Thus to compensate for the "NO FOOD- I CANT EAT- I AM SLEEPING", the bear eat lots and lots and lots and lots of food continuously for many weeks before going to hibernation. Similarly when Number of flight is reduced, then aeroplanes should be filled with lots and lots and lots of people, so that number of tourist doesn't decrease.

People should pay more attention to your posts then their life with CR would be easier. People do not realise that you are decoding the Matrix, here

Ha ha ha , you are too kind felippemed
I am sure people do already appreciate a good explanation posted by me or by other much more learned and wise members. At the end of the day the most important thing is to help clarify doubts and remove confusions. However I do sometimes wonder why people demand too much mathematical analysis to prove the cogency and validity of an argument when a simple logical analysis is more than sufficient. I guess the confidence to avoid mathematical validation of each and every argument only comes with a lot pf practice. Don't worry everyone reaches that stages sooner or later .. its just a matter of individual learning curves.
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 196
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 620 Q42 V33
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2016, 11:21
1
Quote:
Ha ha ha , you are too kind felippemed
I am sure people do already appreciate a good explanation posted by me or by other much more learned and wise members. At the end of the day the most important thing is to help clarify doubts and remove confusions. However I do sometimes wonder why people demand too much mathematical analysis to prove the cogency and validity of an argument when a simple logical analysis is more than sufficient. I guess the confidence to avoid mathematical validation of each and every argument only comes with a lot pf practice. Don't worry everyone reaches that stages sooner or later .. its just a matter of individual learning curves.

I can say for myself. At the beggining I was getting 1 or 0 out of 10. After reading your posts and talking to you, i am now 50-50. Hopefully, I will reach a 75-25 or 80-20, then I'll be super satisfied.

you are very modest! keep it as a gift from heaven!
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 21
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 17 Sep 2016, 05:23
If Option E is negated, the argument is absolutely not destroyed. It's weakened (very strongly so perhaps), but not destroyed.

Negating Option E-Proposal 'would' increase number of passengers per flight. This sample space is way too wide to say that this would result in an increase in total number of passengers or even the same number of passengers. If you look at the subset of the negated sample space, say the new proposal increases passengers per flight (PPF) by an average of 1-10% (i'll even give you a 10%). Total number of passengers under new proposal = 0.9*Original Number of Flights*1.1*Original Number of Passengers Per Flight= 0.99*Original number of total passengers, which is still fewer than the original number of passengers. So just to be clear, everyone's just cool with the fact that your negated sample space does not conclusively destroy the original argument?

Also not to mention the shift the scope, let's say the number of passengers do increase, increase in number of passengers (new passengers) will translate to an increase in revenues only if they bring in revenues at an average rate greater than passengers from before.

So really Option E is making 2 unwarranted assumptions while some of the other Options are only making 1 unwarranted assumption.

Can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning? Happy to be proven wrong but this is one of the queasiest leaps in logic I've seen in a long long time.

Originally posted by cogen234 on 15 Sep 2016, 09:23.
Last edited by cogen234 on 17 Sep 2016, 05:23, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 21
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2016, 05:31
cogen234 wrote:
If Option E is negated, the argument is absolutely not destroyed. It's weakened (very strongly so perhaps), but not destroyed.

Negating Option E-Proposal 'would' increase number of passengers per flight. This sample space is way too wide to say that this would result in an increase in total number of passengers or even the same number of passengers. If you look at the subset of the negated sample space, say the new proposal increases passengers per flight (PPF) by an average of 1-10% (i'll even give you a 10%). Total number of passengers under new proposal = 0.9*Original Number of Flights*1.1*Original Number of Passengers Per Flight= 0.99*Original number of total passengers, which is still fewer than the original number of passengers. So just to be clear, everyone's just cool with the fact that your negated sample space does not conclusively destroy the original argument?

Also not to mention the shift the scope, let's say the number of passengers do increase, increase in number of passengers (new passengers) will translate to an increase in revenues only if they bring in revenues at an average rate greater than passengers from before.

So really Option E is making 2 unwarranted assumptions while some of the other Options are only making 1 unwarranted assumption.

Can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning? Happy to be proven wrong but this is one of the queasiest leaps in logic I've seen in a long long time.

Hi guys, can someone please advise on this? This question really has me worried very much (unless I'm really missing something here), because this is an OG question and it seems to be making really really unfair/unwarranted assumptions (again, only in case my reasoning here is not utterly flawed). Hoping some verbal experts can shed some light on this, because if the exam questions can make these kinds of assumptions, there's really no standardized way to say what's reasonable and what's not. So someone who's naturally inclined to think skeptically/critically (in real life) will be at a massive disadvantage in the exam, because of these types of questions (I've seen more than a handful of them across various sources).
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3201
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2016, 10:27
cogen234 wrote:
If Option E is negated, the argument is absolutely not destroyed. It's weakened (very strongly so perhaps), but not destroyed.

Negating Option E-Proposal 'would' increase number of passengers per flight. This sample space is way too wide to say that this would result in an increase in total number of passengers or even the same number of passengers. If you look at the subset of the negated sample space, say the new proposal increases passengers per flight (PPF) by an average of 1-10% (i'll even give you a 10%). Total number of passengers under new proposal = 0.9*Original Number of Flights*1.1*Original Number of Passengers Per Flight= 0.99*Original number of total passengers, which is still fewer than the original number of passengers. So just to be clear, everyone's just cool with the fact that your negated sample space does not conclusively destroy the original argument?

Also not to mention the shift the scope, let's say the number of passengers do increase, increase in number of passengers (new passengers) will translate to an increase in revenues only if they bring in revenues at an average rate greater than passengers from before.

So really Option E is making 2 unwarranted assumptions while some of the other Options are only making 1 unwarranted assumption.

Can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning? Happy to be proven wrong but this is one of the queasiest leaps in logic I've seen in a long long time.

You definitely have a point here, but this is one pretty straight case - I would suggest not to make the argument unnecessarily complex by going into the negation technique. Use the negation technique is recommended ONLY when two very close choices cannot be eliminated ordinarily:

Now coming to option E (do not yet go into negation technique):

If number of flights are reduced, the revenue also reduces.... UNLESS each flight takes more number of passengers. Therefore an underlying assumption is: each flight does not take more passengers.

However there is one deeper way to think this (which you have done):
If number of flights are reduced, the revenue also reduces.... UNLESS each flight takes (sufficiently) more number of passengers (to compensate for the reduced number of flights). Therefore an underlying assumption is: each flight does not take (sufficiently) more passengers (to compensate for the reduced number of flights).

This deeper analysis would be required if there were two close answers difficult to eliminate - say the second assumption were actually one of the answers choices.

In such case one would require to do an elimination based on negation and obviously one would have has to select the second over first. However in absence of the second assumption,the first passes well as the best choice.

Clicking on the correct option that GMAT thinks is is at the end all that matters.
Intern
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 19
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GMAT 2: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.7
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2016, 21:33
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...
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3201
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2016, 10:55
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...

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.
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 23
GPA: 3.9
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2017, 04:04
Great question. E The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight.

Option E acts like a constant. If passengers per flight increase then the revenue will increase, else no change in the revenue / flight and obviously decrease the revenue for operating budget.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1314
Location: Malaysia
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2017, 05:30
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.

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.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Intern
Joined: 25 Feb 2017
Posts: 40
Location: Korea, Republic of
Schools: LBS '19 (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.67
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2017, 05:57
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.

My 2 cents.
Between C and E, C is wrong because we do not have any info on the number of tourists, what percent consists tourists who spend a lot and how much these groups spend.
So, there could be reduction in the number of tourists who spend a lot but what if there is a huge increase in the number of tourists who spend little?
As such, C maybe true and may not be true.

E is simpler, if we negative, we get that the new safety rule would increase in the number of passengers. This will make the conclusion fall apart.
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2017
Posts: 2
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2017, 07:28
sayantanc2k wrote:
cogen234 wrote:
If Option E is negated, the argument is absolutely not destroyed. It's weakened (very strongly so perhaps), but not destroyed.

Negating Option E-Proposal 'would' increase number of passengers per flight. This sample space is way too wide to say that this would result in an increase in total number of passengers or even the same number of passengers. If you look at the subset of the negated sample space, say the new proposal increases passengers per flight (PPF) by an average of 1-10% (i'll even give you a 10%). Total number of passengers under new proposal = 0.9*Original Number of Flights*1.1*Original Number of Passengers Per Flight= 0.99*Original number of total passengers, which is still fewer than the original number of passengers. So just to be clear, everyone's just cool with the fact that your negated sample space does not conclusively destroy the original argument?

Also not to mention the shift the scope, let's say the number of passengers do increase, increase in number of passengers (new passengers) will translate to an increase in revenues only if they bring in revenues at an average rate greater than passengers from before.

So really Option E is making 2 unwarranted assumptions while some of the other Options are only making 1 unwarranted assumption.

Can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning? Happy to be proven wrong but this is one of the queasiest leaps in logic I've seen in a long long time.

You definitely have a point here, but this is one pretty straight case - I would suggest not to make the argument unnecessarily complex by going into the negation technique. Use the negation technique is recommended ONLY when two very close choices cannot be eliminated ordinarily:

Now coming to option E (do not yet go into negation technique):

If number of flights are reduced, the revenue also reduces.... UNLESS each flight takes more number of passengers. Therefore an underlying assumption is: each flight does not take more passengers.

However there is one deeper way to think this (which you have done):
If number of flights are reduced, the revenue also reduces.... UNLESS each flight takes (sufficiently) more number of passengers (to compensate for the reduced number of flights). Therefore an underlying assumption is: each flight does not take (sufficiently) more passengers (to compensate for the reduced number of flights).

This deeper analysis would be required if there were two close answers difficult to eliminate - say the second assumption were actually one of the answers choices.

In such case one would require to do an elimination based on negation and obviously one would have has to select the second over first. However in absence of the second assumption,the first passes well as the best choice.

Clicking on the correct option that GMAT thinks is is at the end all that matters.

Have gone though the thread more than twice. I agree E is the clearest of the given choices. Just wanted to know why B & C arent?

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.

My understanding:
The choice states that 1 of 100 tourists who use the BCA are those whose main destination is a neighbouring community. It means that 99% of the passengers using the BCA come to the city (and spend). If a (proportionate) reduction in flights (read passengers) happens, say by 10%, then the # of passengers coming into the city (& spending) becomes 99% * 90%. So all else being constant, the revenue goes down.

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.

My understanding:
Two groups of passengers:
A. ones who spend little
B. ones who spend more

The choice states that # of passengers in group A would largely be same. That means passengers in Group B would reduce and thus leading to reduction in revenue.

Please let me know the flaws in my understanding.

Thanks in anticipation.
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2017
Posts: 2
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2017, 20:24
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
WillGetIt wrote:
Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs ﬁom 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.

"Please hit kudos, if you like this post"

Respnding 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 (Airport capacity will decrease by 10%)
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 capacity will actually lead to decrease in number of flights.
2. Decrease in number of flights will actually lead to decrease in number of tourists in the city
3. Decrease in number of tourists will actually lead to decrease in revenue (tourists will not start spending extra)
4. 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.

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 2 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.

Have gone though the thread more than twice. I agree E is the clearest of the given choices. Just wanted to know why B & C arent?

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.

My understanding:
The choice states that 1 of 100 tourists who use the BCA are those whose main destination is a neighbouring community. It means that 99% of the passengers using the BCA come to the city (and spend). If a (proportionate) reduction in flights (read passengers) happens, say by 10%, then the # of passengers coming into the city (& spending) becomes 99% * 90%. So all else being constant, the revenue goes down.

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.

My understanding:
Two groups of passengers:
A. ones who spend little
B. ones who spend more

The choice states that # of passengers in group A would largely be same. That means passengers in Group B would reduce and thus leading to reduction in revenue.

Please let me know the flaws in my understanding.

Thanks in anticipation.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 277
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2017, 06:02
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.

* Since this is an ASSUMPTION question, our goal is to NEGATE the A/C and see which one BREAKS the Conclusion above (Bold)

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
- Ok. And? Are there so few of these periods that its inconsequential?

(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.
- If all tourists behave the same regardless, this doesn't help/weaken anything

(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.
- less concerned with WHY the # of tourists declined as we are with increasing the #

(D) Increasing the minimum time between takeoffs is [NOT] the only way to achieve necessary safety improvements without a large expenditure by the city government on airport enhancements.
- we don't care that there are other ways to achieve safety improvements...we don't even really care about safety improvements

(E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight.
- Bingo! If there are more passengers/flight, then I can imagine a scenario that even with fewer flights, the same # of tourists could be coming

Ans clearly E.
- Hack: it would be helpful to continue to remind yourself WHAT THE CONCLUSION IS. "Therefore" = Conclusion language, so it helps ID it.
-- Once you know the Conclusion, you know that you need to negate the A/Cs to see which one BREAKS the Conclusion.

Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 744
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2017, 12:08
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.

Cause and effect passage:
1) New rules
2) Result: less accommodation
3) Operating budget depends on tourist spending
4) Result: reduction in revenue available

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
Does not matter. INCORRECT.

(B) Few, if any, of the tourists who use the Beach City airport do so when their main destination is a neighbouring community and not Beach City itself.
FEW (IF ANY) can be 1 or 100 but what about others. Also IRRELEVANT because their MAIN destination is NOT beach city. No spending here then.

(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.
IRRELEVANT.

(E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight.
If the number of passengers per flight are increased then the conclusion falls apart.
So correct.
_________________

Help me make my explanation better by providing a logical feedback.

If you liked the post, HIT KUDOS !!

Don't quit.............Do it.

Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2016
Posts: 236
Location: United States
GPA: 3.4
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2017, 10:22
For CR questions with some data, I find it useful to take values.
Lets assume 100P tourists come into Beach city and after the new safety rule, the number of tourists reduces to 90P.
Here P represents the number of passengers per plane.

After reading the argument, it becomes obvious that we have no idea about how many tourists are coming on each flight.

If 100P < 90P then yes, the tourist spending will decrease and affect the budget. If not, it the budget will either stay the same or increase. Any answer choice that raises this point is the answer.

Also negating answer E destroys the conclusion.
_________________

Kudosity killed the cat but your kudos can save it.

Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2018
Posts: 80
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2018, 18:32
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.

Conclusion - Less Flights - Less tourist - Less revenue
What are we looking for - something which is a must for above causality.

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.
-- We are not concerned about period of the day.Even if we have some periods free we are not sure if the flights can be rescheduled.

(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 are concerned about the money spend by tourist. Even if Beach city is not the main destination , spending by lots of tourists can add enough to tax.

(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.
-- This is a strengthener. Not a must to be true.

(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.
-- Irrelevant. We are not concerned about the number of ways govt. had.

(E) The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per ﬂight.
-- Correct Answer. Negate this - So now even if number of flights are reduced , number of tourists/flight has increases - so there will not be much revenue loss.
Re: Proposed new safety rules for the Beach City airport would lengthen co   [#permalink] 12 Jun 2018, 18:32

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 37 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by