Since the 1950s, jets have steadily replaced smaller propeller planes

OE

This is an explanation question. The passage describes the various benefits of jets--their fuel efficiency, comfort, and ability to fly higher and faster than smaller planes--but then notes that turboprop planes are enjoying a resurgence. We're looking for a choice that resolves the apparent paradox.

(A) This choice addresses one of the benefits of jet travel, but it doesn't suggest why turboprop planes have overtaken jets despite the other clear advantages.
(B) This is correct. While it acknowledges the benefits of jet travel, it relates their very popularity with an increasing price that makes other alternatives more attractive.
(C) This is a common form of incorrect choice. Just because the same phenomenon is observed elsewhere does not explain why it is occurring as described in the passage.
(D) This is off-topic. It doesn't matter who owns the planes. We're looking for a choice that explains why jets are losing popularity despite several benefits.
(E) This choice suggests one cost of travel by jet, but it doesn't suggest that turboprop planes escape the same fate, nor does it confirm that the increase in cost is enough to offset the benefits of jet operation and travel.

The sourse: is valuable, without doubt

https://www.gmatdaily.com/20091103-gmat- ... e-day.html

Marcab
I also think E cannot be the answer,
We do not know for sure which kind of fuel does the Turboprop uses.......If it uses the same jet fuel, than for sure its not an advantage...
we need to use some evidence that we know for sure from the passage......Availability of jet fuel is not at all in question......If it would have been, In first place it would have not been considered for replacement to the older planes.
No company will replace their existing product with another , If it costs more than the previous. Same logic is used to substantiate B.
Difference between B and E is
B presents the reason that explains price factor only after the jet planes have become popular i.e earlier their costs were lower .Its only after jet plane becoming popular the price has gone high.

On the other hand, E Considers something if that existed it should not have been considered to replace.

Hope that helps!!!!!
 

+1 for A. Because, it seems to bring in all premises.


Stated:
Since 1950's Jets have become quieter, more comfortable, faster and fly higher. FE as much as 70% (Probably stated to say it takes a LOT to negate this benefit).
Travel @ cruising altitude is especially efficient.

What if the improvements since 1950's were fine but, not actually applicable in Kawai islands case because, the trips are shorter (so passengers don't care about comfortable). Trips are shorter, so, they hardly even fly at cruising speed.

Alternatively, What if Jets can take more passengers (50-100) and turbo planes take 10-15 passengers, so, there is not more than 10 passengers per flight, so, the companies feel it is rather economic to deploy turbo planes instead of using jets almost empty. [ Nonetheless, I did not see any answers related to this]

(A) Because trips within Kawaii are relatively short, planes spend little time at cruising altitude.

This answer seems to state the same point

(B) As jets have become more popular, their increased price has erased the financial advantages of their fuel efficiency. => We've not been told of any supply/demand equation or how much is more popular and increased price? are they huge enough to negate 70% fuel efficiency. It is stretching.

(C) Turboprop planes have also enjoyed resurgence in other island nations, especially those with extreme climates.
Out of scope
(D) Many of the independent airlines that once served Kawaii have been purchased by larger multinational airlines.
No way related to the topic
(E) Due to Kawaii's remote location, jet fuel is more expensive there than in most other parts of the world.
That would have been the case always. Kawai would have not gone far away in decades. Also, we've been told 70% fuel efficiency is achieved, so, this actually doesn't resolve the paradox.

Perhaps my brain is nor working, but I would like to know how B helps in the resurgence of the other species.
If two genres become equal, does it means that we prefer one over the other?
Moreover what is wrong with E. IMO it seems fine.
What is the OA?

The reason to justify B is also valid for A aint it ?
A---> Other positives still remain
B----> Other positives still remain.

Hi Gladiator59 ... your 2 cents please.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.