Critical Reasoning

Testluv wrote:received a pm asking me to post

Hi xcusemeplz2009,

Step one of the Kaplan method tells us to read the question stem. The question stem, here, tells us that it is a paradox or explain question.

Step two is to analyze the stimulus. A paradox just means something unexpected (surprising) happened. You should look for keywords that tell you what the paradox (or surprise) is (yet, but, however, nevertheless, surprise.)

Here, the passage starts with "it might seem." With "it might seem" the author tells us what we should ordinarily expect: that airlines can increase profits by reducing prices (because it's cheaper, more people will fly and profits will grow).

The second sentence tells us why we should expect this (because that's generally what happens).

We don't argue with this. In a paradox question, you're not trying to poke a hole in what the author is telling you (Instead, you have to determine what the unexpected thing (surprise/paradox etc) is.). So, right now, we take it as given that airlines are normally able to boost profits by cutting down the prices of the tickets--that's what ordinarily happens.

But, the third sentence starts off with the important keyword: nevertheless. That means we are about to learn that something unexpected happened: such offers have sometimes actually hurt profits not helped them. So that is the paradox.

Step three is to make a prediction. In paradox questions we don't predicting something specific. Instead, we predict that the right answer will resolve the surprise. In a paradox question, you should have the answers to two questions very clear in your head before you go to the answer choices:

1) What is the paradox (ie, surprise)?

2) Why is it paradoxical (ie, surprising)?

Here, the surprise is that some airlines' profits actually get hurt when they cut ticket prices.

And, it is surprising because, ordinarily, airlines' profits are boosted when they cut ticket prices.

Now, we go through the choices searching for something that will be logically capable of resolving this surprise (Step 4 is match). We are looking for a fact that will make everything in the passage make sense. Say to yourself: "I want an explanation!"

Let's do this:

(A) Fewer than 10 percent of all air travelers make no attempt to seek out discount fares.
Doesn't matter. Instead of resolving the paradox, this choice casts doubt on the idea that cutting prices will boost profits in general. But we were told in the passage that, ordinarily, cutting prices will boost profits. In a paradox question (like in an inference) question, everything in the passage must be true.

(B) Fares for trips between a large city and a small city are higher than those for trips between two large cities even when the distances involved are the same.
This is clearly outside of the scope. In order to even think this choice was relevant we would have to make a bunch of assumptions.

(C) Across-the-board discounts in fares tend to decrease revenues on flights that are normally filled, but they fail to attract passengers to unpopular flights.

So, a certain kind of price-cutting-off the board price cutting can actually hurt profits. Across the board price cutting will fail to attract customers. This is capable of explaining our paradox (that sometimes price-cutting hurts profits), and we are done. (We don't now stop and say: oh but how do I know that the airlines' whose profits were hurt in the passage are doing across-the-board cutting.) The right answer just has to be something that is logically capable of resolving the paradox.

Let me know if either of choices D or E were bothering you!

It might seem that an airline could increase profits by reducing airfares on all its flights in order to encourage discretionary travel and thus fill planes. Offers of across-the-board discount fares have, indeed, resulted in the sale of large numbers of reduced-price tickets. Nevertheless such offers have, in the past, actually cut the airline's profits.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
(A) Fewer than 10 percent of all air travelers make no attempt to seek out discount fares.
(B) Fares for trips between a large city and a small city are higher than those for trips between two large cities even when the distances involved are the same.
(C) Across-the-board discounts in fares tend to decrease revenues on flights that are normally filled, but they fail to attract passengers to unpopular flights.
(D) Only a small number of people who have never before traveled by air are persuaded to do so on the basis of across-the-board discount fares.
(E) It is difficult to devise an advertising campaign that makes the public aware of across-the-board discount fares while fully explaining the restrictions applied to those discount fares.

what is issue with D.

It says small number of people who travel by other medium are persuaded to travel by plane.

It means reducing fare will not increase profit as the number of pasengers will not increase but operating plane cost remain same.