The restrictions on what one can carry inside an airplane are surely

Question

The restrictions on what one can carry inside an airplane are surely too severe. Airlines these days issue a long checklist of items that cannot be carried inside an aircraft making it cumbersome for the travelers to keep a track of all these items. In any case, barely two percent of travelers are ever caught with these restricted items, so it’s best if these restrictions are removed.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The restrictions themselves do not discourage people from carrying restricted items on to airplanes.

(B) The restrictions have been implemented all across the world.

(C) There is no scope for corrupt practices on the part of those enforcing these restrictions.

(D) There have been instances when an innocent traveler has been wrongly detained by over cautious airline personnel.

(E) Criminals are hardly likely to carry restricted items with them on an airline.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

AyushiSwamy12 · Answer

please provide the correct answer sir/ma'am

Bunuel · Answer

The OA will be automatically revealed on Wednesday 21st of May 2025 12:30:24 AM Pacific Time Zone

SUSHANTH1252 · Answer

I think the answer should be D . Because negating that option will destroy the conclusion

harshvardhanindia · Answer

conclusion =almost none are caught therefore remove restrictions .

i think it was between A&E but E was stronger as (E)Criminals are hardly likely to carry restricted items with them on an airline. NEGATIVE becomes criminals are very likely to carry the restricted items with them on an airline . 
So the ones caught are criminals or mostly criminals and therefore removing restrictions could allow criminals to bring restricted stuff.

(A) The restrictions themselves do not discourage people from carrying restricted items on to airplanes. NEGATIVE BECOMES the restrictions themselves discourage people from carrying restricted items to airplanes hence removing them will be= more people carrying 
restricted items

so in my head E broke the argument more but i still need clarity on this question

hehehuhuhihi · Answer

can someone kindly explain why the correct answer should be A instead of E?

APram · Answer

The correct answer should be A

Premise: In any case only 2% traveller's are ever caught with restricted items

Conclusion: Better to remove restriction.

(A)The restrictions themselves do not discourage people from carrying restricted items on to airplanes.

This assumption leads to conclusion as if restriction is not discouraging people then it doesn't matter if we keep restriction or not

(B) The restrictions have been implemented all across the world.
This is too extreme.

(C) There is no scope for corrupt practices on the part of those enforcing these restrictions.
This is new information and is still extreme of totally no scope

(D) There have been instances when an innocent traveler has been wrongly detained by over cautious airline personnel.
No information regarding innocent travellers being caught or non innocent travellers

(E) Criminals are hardly likely to carry restricted items with them on an airline.
This is too extreme for criminals to be thought of 2%. It can be more and likeliness of them carrying restricted items cannot be negated as per the passage.

Please give kudos if you like the explanation!

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: A

The argument concludes that since only 2% of airline travelers are caught with restricted items, it doesn’t make sense to have these restrictions in the first place. The argument assumes that it is not the restrictions themselves that prevent the other 98% of people from carrying restricted items on to airplanes.

(A) The correct answer.

(B) This has no connection with the reasoning in the argument.

(C) Whether there is scope for corruption on the part of those enforcing these restrictions is outside the purview of the argument.

(D) This could be an example of a problem with having the restrictions but is definitely not an assumption in the argument.

(E) This could be because of the restrictions; if the restrictions were not there, the criminals would most likely carry such items with them on to airplanes.

The restrictions on what one can carry inside an airplane are surely

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The restrictions on what one can carry inside an airplane are surely

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards