MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
The biggest issue I see with (A) is the following.
Here is the arguement once again:
Quote:
Since the deregulation of airlines, delays at the nation's increasingly busy airports have increased by 25 percent. To combat this problem, more of the takeoff and landing slots at the busiest airports must be allocated to commercial airlines.
Focussing on the yellow, the proposed solution just has to "
Combat this problem"
The proposed solution [more allocations to commercial airlines] DOES NOT HAVE REVERSE ALL OF THE 25 % delay.
Even if the solution can alleviate "some" of the delay, the proposed solution is a success.
Now, the issue with (A) is :
(A) by itself DOES NOTHING TO SUGGEST that the proposed solution (
increased allocations)
WONT work (by a little bit at-least)
Hence i knoced out (A)
Hi jabhatta2.
Notice that the conclusion is "To combat this problem, more of the takeoff and landing slots at the busiest airports must be allocated to commercial airlines."
If what (A) says is true, then it is not the case that, to combat the problem, more of the takeoff and landing slots at the busiest airports MUST be allocated to commercial airlines. After all, in that case, most of the delays are caused by other things. So, even if takeoff and landing slots are NOT allocated, it is still possible to combat the problem.
Hi
MartyTargetTestPrep - Thank you for responding
In order to weaken the effectiveness of the proposed solution , dont you have to proove that
allocating more of the takeoff and landing slots to commercial airlines. IS NOT going to be able to reduce the 25 % delay ?
I dont see how the underline is inferable just because the causes of the delay are different.
It's possible that the proposed solution will be effective EVEN THOUGH the cause the problem is something different.
below is an analogy of what i mean
===========
Quote:
Analogy :
Ever since John moved into the room, the room smells. To combat this problem, we need to notify John that his pets cannot enter the home.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the effectiveness of the solution proposed above?
(A) major causes for the smell are John's cooking and John's smoking in the room
Now, cooking and smoking maybe is the cause of the majority of the smell.
But its possible that the removing his pets WILL combat the problem of the smell BY A LITTLE BIT AT-LEAST.
Will it solve MOST OF THE SMELL problem ? No
But removing john's pet could solve SOME of the smell problem