BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR:Effective Reasoning

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:56 pm
GMAT Score:730

CR:Effective Reasoning

by prakhag » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:17 am
Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative's argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

I don't have OA for this. Any experts' feedback will be really appreciated...
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:49 am
prakhag wrote:Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative's argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

I don't have OA for this. Any experts' feedback will be really appreciated...

Pick C

Question asks us to SUPPORT or STRENGTHEN the Industrialist claim.

(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.

This statement "dismiss" all other alternatives. Say like ,if there is a increase in number of flights and that has increased the pollution and Delay and frequent mishaps due to congestion ..so that may be a disadvantage to the consumer.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

by sumanr84 » Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:04 am
IMO:D

(A) No small airport - Extreme answer
(B) Irrelevant
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers. - its not a 100% sure statement
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
- This should hold otherwise commuter won't be in profit due to this latest change in policy.

(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.
- competitors is out of question here.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 7:57 pm

by DonPaw » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:22 am
sumanr84 wrote:IMO:D

(A) No small airport - Extreme answer
(B) Irrelevant
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers. - its not a 100% sure statement
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
- This should hold otherwise commuter won't be in profit due to this latest change in policy.

(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.
- competitors is out of question here.
IMO : D .. We need to support the argument of Industry Representative.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:20 am
C is better here
prakhag wrote:Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative's argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

I don't have OA for this. Any experts' feedback will be really appreciated...
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:56 pm
GMAT Score:730

by prakhag » Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:13 pm
C talks about "having easy access" and "do not generally work to the disadvantage"; the premise, however, states that MOST of the airports will not be impacted, so how do we know "having easy access" will work in this case and also "do not generally work to the disadvantage" will work in every situation?

Does't A fill the gap between "Most of the the a'ports" and "All a'ports"?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:16 pm
This is a LSAT, test 14 problem.
And the OA is C.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:10 am
prakhag wrote:Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative's argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

I don't have OA for this. Any experts' feedback will be really appreciated...
Conclusion of industry rep: That the deregulation has been GOOD for consumers.

Premise: More flights

Assumption: that X=Y. That more flights = good for consumers.

Answer choice C gives us this assumption: Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights...do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers. In other words, an increase in flights is GOOD for consumers.

And C passes the negation test. Negated, answer choice C would say:

Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights...generally DO work to the disadvantage of consumers.

The negation of answer choice C makes the industry rep's argument fall apart: it says that an increase in the number of flights hurts the consumers. So answer choice C must be true for the rep's argument to hold together.

The correct answer is C.

Hope this helps!
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:42 pm
prakhag wrote:Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative's argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

I don't have OA for this. Any experts' feedback will be really appreciated...
Before attacking the question, it's important to note that it's from the LSAT, not the GMAT. In general, LSAT logical reasoning questions are not representative of GMAT critical reasoning questions. Some people think that LR is good prep for CR, since on the whole LR questions are perceived as tougher. However, they're not just tougher, they're also different. Practicing with non-"GMATesque" questions is NOT a good way to prep for the GMAT.

With that out of the way, I was asked to comment on this thread, so here's my dissection.

Step 1 of the Kaplan Method for CR: Focus on the Question Stem

Here's an important rule for question stems: the more convoluted the stem, the more time you should think about it. After all, if you misinterpret the question, you're in big trouble before you even get started.

Even though is is an LSAT question, it's a question type that's also common on the GMAT.

We see "unless which one of the following is true" and think: whenever a question asks me what MUST be true in order for an argument to be valid, I'm being asked to identify an ASSUMPTION of the argument.

Note that inference questions can use similar language - an inference question asks us what must be true based on what we've already read.

Here's the big difference between assumptions and inferences:

An assumption is an unstated but necessary piece of evidence; an inference is an unstated conclusion.

Now that we've identified what our goal is (find something that must be true in order for the industry rep's response to be effective), we have to deconstruct the argument (step 2 of the Kaplan method), make a prediction (step 3 of the Kaplan method) and match our prediction to the right choice (step 4 of the Kaplan method). Mitch already did a great job on steps 2 through 4, so no need for me to parrot what he already said.

As a small aside, those who chose (D) likely misinterpreted the stem and thought this was a strengthening question instead of an assumption question. (D) provides a benefit for consumers in those markets, but isn't a MUST BE TRUE, which is what an assumption question demands.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:18 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by ansumania » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:01 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
prakhag wrote:Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative's argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist's claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

I don't have OA for this. Any experts' feedback will be really appreciated...
Conclusion of industry rep: That the deregulation has been GOOD for consumers.

Premise: More flights

Assumption: that X=Y. That more flights = good for consumers.

Answer choice C gives us this assumption: Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights...do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers. In other words, an increase in flights is GOOD for consumers.

And C passes the negation test. Negated, answer choice C would say:

Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights...generally DO work to the disadvantage of consumers.

The negation of answer choice C makes the industry rep's argument fall apart: it says that an increase in the number of flights hurts the consumers. So answer choice C must be true for the rep's argument to hold together.

The correct answer is C.

Hope this helps!
why can't A be correct?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:07 am
ansumania wrote:
why can't A be correct?
Well, for a few reasons.

First, because (C) is correct, and every GMAT question only has 1 right answer!

OK - that was the simple reason - let's look at (A):
No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.


I guess a good question would be why do you think (A) is correct. If you correctly identified this an an assumption question, you know that you're looking for an answer that must be true in order for the conclusion to make sense. Let's look at the exact wording of the industry rep:
On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.
The industry rep explicitly said most small airports; to justify this, does it have to be true for every small airport? Definitely not.

So, (A) doesn't have to be true, therefore it's not the correct answer to an assumption question.

Here's a general tip for assumption questions: beware of extremely worded answer choices. We only require extreme statements to support extreme conclusions and, since most GMAT arguments don't have extreme conclusions, it's extremely rare for extreme choices to be correct.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:25 am

by hero » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:57 pm
good response. i was also thinking A as well. this cleared it up. further, i had a difficult time assessing this as an assumption question. i viewed it as a strengthen question...as such, i didn't apply the negation technique.

with the proper knowledge though, i can look at a through a different perspective as you put it.

the logical opposite of "no small airport" is not going to be "every small airport". instead, the logical opposite would be "a number of small airports...."

as you put it, this answer does not necessarily weaken the conclusion. It may...but it may not. the only thing was know is that does not have to be true. as such, it's incorrect. An assumption is something the author accepts as 100% true in order to draw his/her conclusion.

thanks!

glad someone pointed out the lsat and gmat questions are different though...i had a difficult time properly identifying this question and using the correct techniques.

Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
ansumania wrote:
why can't A be correct?
Well, for a few reasons.

First, because (C) is correct, and every GMAT question only has 1 right answer!

OK - that was the simple reason - let's look at (A):
No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.


I guess a good question would be why do you think (A) is correct. If you correctly identified this an an assumption question, you know that you're looking for an answer that must be true in order for the conclusion to make sense. Let's look at the exact wording of the industry rep:
On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.
The industry rep explicitly said most small airports; to justify this, does it have to be true for every small airport? Definitely not.

So, (A) doesn't have to be true, therefore it's not the correct answer to an assumption question.

Here's a general tip for assumption questions: beware of extremely worded answer choices. We only require extreme statements to support extreme conclusions and, since most GMAT arguments don't have extreme conclusions, it's extremely rare for extreme choices to be correct.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1