Some airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money, in order to drive
competitors off those routes. However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long
run. Once an airline successfully implements this method, any attempt to recoup the earlier losses by charging
high fares on that route for an extended period would only provide competitors with a better opportunity to
undercut the airline's fares
. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost. So what some countries really doesn't cut it.
B. Airline executives generally believe that a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is
very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge. Correct as it explains that in the event that fares are raised by the airlines and it faces competition from new competitors who were driven away. It can lower its air fare to drive them away again.
C. As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below
an economically sustainable level. How does this weaken the argument ?
D. On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce
the size of their operations. Kind of strengthens the argument and does the opposite of what is being asked
E. When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that
route increases greatly. The argument is talking about higher fares (see the bold portion), so this kind of irrelevant.
We are concerned with criticizing the argument, so should stick to the information present in it.
2.>At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to
watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such
seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as
long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with
high tables and stools, its profits would increase. The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds
that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
A. some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were
B. the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they
spend lingering over their meals irrelevant and extraneous information
C. a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization
about lingering. Correct Shows that people,in general, do not prefer to sit at a tall table. So the plan will fail and attacks the premise that many people prefer tall tables.
D. a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those
who remain at their meals longer . Careful with this one, There is no apparent relationship b/w profit and expensive nature of meal.
E. with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would
be no view except of other tall tables. So how does this affect the profitability
--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.