What is the OA?

IMO: C

Argument:
- Airlines will reduce their price to a point which they lose money in order to eliminate competition.

- This method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run.

Conclusion:
- Any attempt to recoup lost revenue by charging higher rates for an extended period provides competitors with an opportunity to undercut the airline's price.

(A) is irrelevant IMO

(B) Supports the arguement in stating an airline which once cut prices to eliminate competition will do so again. If the airline reduces its price a second time they are cutting into their profits.

(C) As part of promotions, airlines sometimes price their tickets below an economically sustainable level. Leads me to believe that competitors are not looking for an opportunity to undercut a competitor airline's price, rather they are looking to promote their airline.

(D) Out of scope, the passage does not mention airlines reducing operations

(E) Out of scope, the passage does not mention the number of passengers

What is the OA?

The answer should be B.

The agruement says that raising the fares back after there is no competition would give the competitors an opportunity to enter the market again by undercutting the particular airline's fares.

This could be weakened by something which hints that the competition can be driven out again.

Choice B points in that direction by saying that once an airline has lowered the fares to drive the competition out, it is likely to do so again when the competitors return.

Hope I have made sense.

Answere should be B

The option C does not talk about the competitors. It does not weaken the conclusion.

Yes,the answer should be B.

None other option actually weakens the argument.

Answer B is correct coz it's actually weakening the argument by emphasizing that there's no threat from the competitor since the airlines can reduce the price again.

IMO B

count my vote for B too

Guys can anyone give a decent reason why B is not right.