Critical Reasoning

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 sucessfully 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.

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.

C) As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable level.

D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.

E) When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.


OA is B. The thing is, all through, I had this understanding that we need to ignore options where mere opinions are expressed, which is the case with B. As far as I remember, this is probably the first such instance in my memory. I found this question tough, and rejected B straight away via POE .. and ended up choosing E, although I was not very convinced.

This is a GMAT prep question, so all the more confusion.

Can someone please help !! Need to have a strategy .. !!

“We need to ignore options where mere opinions are expressed,” I have never heard of this before, but the strategy seems promising. Could you give me some reference in which you found this?

I selected B because it clearly says that an airline can apply the same method again, if any competitor emerges in future. The method is apply the method, eliminate competition, increase price, earn profit, and re-introduce the method if any competitor arises in future. Hence, it weakens the argument.

E rather strengthens the argument.

I guess, it’s easy to eliminate A, C, and D

The key here, and really on most critical reading passages, is to focus on the conclusion.

The conclusion states that when airline 1 increases its fares to recoup the money lost on decreasing earlier fares, other companies will come in and take advantage of the opportunity to gain customers due to the increased fares of airline 1.

But what if choice B were true. If choice B were true, and 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, then the other airlines would have less incentive to take advantage of airline 1 when it increased its prices. The other airlines would realize that once the new competition emerged, airline 1 would once again reduce its prices, thereby eliminating the competition.

So if choice B were true, then the conclusion stating that competition will emerge once airline 1 reduces its prices, falls apart. So, choice B weakens the argument (or more specifically, the stated conclusion of the argument.)

Thanks both.

Karmayogi, I don't remember the source. I don't even remember whether I read this rule somewhere or I formed it on my .... But I was fairly convinced before this question, and don't remember applying this rule wrongly, even in the O.G.

Guess , I need to remember this from now on !!

I will Go with option B in this case