Editorial: Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing

Question

Editorial: Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing air traffic, analysts propose building a second airport to benefit our city's economy by allowing more flights and hence attracting more visitors. But this plan would not succeed. If flights to different cities were inconveniently divided between two airports, fewer travelers would make flight connections in our city.

Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the editorial's argument that the plan would not succeed?

A. A reduction in travelers flying to a city's airport merely to make flight connections does not preclude a significant increase in travelers visiting the city itself.
B. The number of flights to an airport typically increases as the number of travelers making flight connections increases.
C. Building a second airport would not benefit the city's economy unless it increased the number of travelers through the city's airport.
D. If fewer travelers make flight connections through an airport, the number of flights through that airport typically declines.
E. Some of the cities that, for their size, attract relatively large numbers of visitors have only one airport.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-5bl0f58j.png [ 101.37 KiB | Viewed 3202 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

A

Pro tip: Combine official questions for familiarity with GMAT Club Tests for analytics and tougher Focus-level practice so the real exam feels manageable. Explore →

gmatophobia · Answer

Plan:   Build a second airport to benefit our city's economy by allowing more flights and hence attracting more visitors.

Conclusion  : The plan would not succeed.

Support Given for the Conclusion  : If flights to different cities were inconveniently divided between two airports, fewer travelers would make flight connections.

We need to find the option that weakens this argument the most.

Answer Choice Elimination :

A. A reduction in travelers flying to a city's airport merely to make flight connections does not preclude a significant increase in travelers visiting the city itself.

This option weakens the argument by suggesting that even if there's a reduction in travelers making flight connections, there could still be an increase in travelers visiting the city itself. This implies that the overall impact on the city's economy could still be positive, even with fewer connecting flights. Keep A.

B. The number of flights to an airport typically increases as the number of travelers making flight connections increases.

This option talks about the correlation between the number of flights and the number of travelers making connections. The option doesn't weaken the premise presented in support of the conclusion. Eliminate B.

C. Building a second airport would not benefit the city's economy unless it increased the number of travelers through the city's airport.

This option is slightly strengthens the concerns presented by the Editorial. Hence, we can eliminate C.

D. If fewer travelers make flight connections through an airport, the number of flights through that airport typically declines.

This option strengthens the argument by suggesting that if fewer travelers make flight connections, the number of flights through that airport typically declines. This supports the argument that dividing flights between two airports would be detrimental, as it implies a reduction in the number of flights at each airport. Eliminate D.

E. Some of the cities that, for their size, attract relatively large numbers of visitors have only one airport.

This option is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't address the issue of connections or the impact of the second airport.

Option A

JoeKan1234 · Answer

Aim: to benefit the city's economy by allowing more flights and hence attracting more visitors Conclusion: this plan will not succeed beacuse fewer travelers would make flight connections out of inconvenience A tells us that people may still visit the city. Therefore, the city's economy can benefit from it. Keep. B weakens the conclusion as the reasoning is that there may be fewer travellers making flight connections. C also weakens the conclusion. D weakens the the conclusion. E tells us a correlation, but a correlation cannot reliably strenghten an argument. GMAT-Club-Forum-3qdrw0ab.png

hughng92 · Answer

The issue with the conclusion "If flights to different cities were inconveniently divided between two airports, fewer travelers would make flight connections in our city" is that the author established a correlation between transit flights and final-destination flights - which presents a flaw in their logic. Choice A points out that flaw: Even if the number of transit flights decrease, that does not correlate with a reduction in final-destination flights, aka travelers make that city as their final destination to visit the city. GMAT-Club-Forum-ext8s33q.png

lily123400 · Answer

Editorial Argument: The city's plan to build a second airport to attract more visitors will not succeed because the second airport might result in less people connecting through the city.

Reading this, I see a logical flaw in that the argument uses less connecting flights = less travelers. Wouldn't travelers more likely to land directly in the city and not be connecting? In addition, we don't know about the true status of the connecting flights and whether it's true or not that there will be less. We need a condition that weakens despite not knowing.

A. A reduction in travelers flying to a city's airport merely to make flight connections does not preclude a significant increase in travelers visiting the city itself. 
Exactly this because even if the editorialist is right about less connections, this establishes no connection between that and less travelers.

B. The number of flights to an airport typically increases as the number of travelers making flight connections increases. 
We can eliminate this because we don't know if it's the case in this scenario that the number of travelers making flight connections increases. That's an unknown and what the editorialist is speculating on. this could be a fact but it wouldn't weaken the claim if we are indeed making less connections.

C. Building a second airport would not benefit the city's economy unless it increased the number of travelers through the city's airport. 
This doesn't weaken the argument because it's stating another condition that must be true.

D. If fewer travelers make flight connections through an airport, the number of flights through that airport typically declines. 
This doesn't weaken the argument because it insinuates another effect from the reduced connections

E. Some of the cities that, for their size, attract relatively large numbers of visitors have only one airport. 
This isn't relevant to the argument because we are already building a second airport so we are not considering just one airport

Editorial: Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing

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

Editorial: Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing

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