Page 1 of 2

#18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:17 pm
by karina_fom
Hello,

I am a little confused with this question. I understand the argument itself and answered #17 correctly. However, I don't understand why D is correct answer fir 18. I answered B.

Thank you!

Re: #18

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:20 pm
by David Boyle
karina_fom wrote:Hello,

I am a little confused with this question. I understand the argument itself and answered #17 correctly. However, I don't understand why D is correct answer fir 18. I answered B.

Thank you!



Hello karina_fom,

Answer B is not too bad, but, among other things, it does not assert that the government indeed had an effect on the issue at all, but just notes that "When any sizable group of consumers is seriously disadvantaged by a change in government policy, that change should be reversed." But answer D goes the extra mile and openly asserts that "At the time of the regulatory change, the major airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes at least in part because of government requirements." So answer D is the best answer, since it confirms a linkage between what the government did and what the airlines did.

Hope this helps,
David

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:33 pm
by karina_fom
David,

Thanks a lot for reply! Now I understand it.

Best,
Karina

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:08 pm
by Kdup
Hi David,

I selected answer "C" because the consumer activists argument that "the government's decisions to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone...." I inferred that because it worked to the disadvantage of those folks, when the government did regulate it, it worked to the advantage. I separated my answer choices between contenders and losers and easily removed answer choice A, B, and E. I was stuck between C and D.

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:10 pm
by nicholaspavic
Hi Kdup,

This is a great question. But remember, the stimulus doesn't say just "everyone." In fact, it says "everyone who lacks access to a large metropolitan airport." So Answer Option (C) which states "Government regulation of industry almost always works to the advantage of consumers" is a seriously overly broad statement because it is addressing "everyone" ("the consumers"). If Answer (C) is still confusing to you, consider that people in range of the large metropolitan airports are not a part of the consumer activist's argument because he's not worried about those people. On the other hand, Answer (D)'s scope is much more limited and its negation using the Assumption Negation technique directly attacks the CA's conclusion that "the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to a large metropolitan airport."

Thanks and I hope this helps! :-D

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:08 am
by deck1134
Hi Powerscore,

Got this one right! Yay.

But I want to make sure I understand why (E) is wrong. I think that it is wrong becuase the Activist doesn't have to care about regional airlines at all, that comes later. Her argument just assumes that people are disadvantaged, which could happen regardless of the presence of regional airlines, right? (And it also isn't a "quality of service" issue, but rather a range of service issue, right?)

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:58 pm
by mrcheese
Is E wrong because the regional airlines had not been brought up yet in the stimulus?

Maybe it is too specific? "lack the resources" - perhaps it was something else that was wrong with the airline's service..

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:28 pm
by Claire Horan
Hi Deck and Mr. Cheese,

Remember that an assumption is a necessary premise for the argument to hold. I think your comments are on the right track, but I would state the reason more simply: Choice (E) is wrong because a premise about regional airports lacking resources is not REQUIRED for the conclusion that "the government's decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to a large metropolitan airport." For example, the disadvantage could be the one most people are accustomed to, that regional airports are more expensive.

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:18 am
by StanleyMK
Hello,

From previous explanations in this thread, I see why answer choice E is wrong (which is the answer I unfortunately selected).

D was my other contender.

I ultimately ruled out choice D because I believed there was a temporal issue in the answer choice.

Specifically, when the answer says, "At the time of the regulatory change, the..." I perceived the answer choice to mean that the airlines were maintaining their less profitable routes even after the governmental ceasing of regulations occurred, which totally goes against what the consumer activist states.

While I was trying to choose between D and E, I had my doubts about whether my interpretation of the temporal issue was correct. But then I saw A's language that states, "Before the recent change in regulatory policy,..." and thought for sure that the test makers were trying to trick me with D by slyly sliding in the temporal issue.

Wouldn't D be a better choice if it had said, "Just before the time of the regulatory change, the major airlines were maintaining...in part because of government requirements?"

Thank you in advance!

Re: #18- Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:39 pm
by James Finch
Hi Stanley,

What a group was doing "at the time of" a certain major change would imply the same conditions as "just before" that change; in this case, the airlines would have been required to maintain the regional routes until the change took effect, so they were maintaining the routes at that time. But as soon as the change happened, they were suddenly allowed to cease maintaining the routes, which they did.

An analogy might help. Let's say there is a regional transit service that runs 4 trains a day between two specific stops: one at 7 AM, one at 10 AM, one at 2 PM and one at 5 PM. The schedule is subject to change annually (although it doesn't have to) on April 1st. Over the last year, the 2 PM train had hardly any riders and was very unprofitable for the transit service, so they decided to discontinue it, beginning this past April 1st. It would then be fair to say that at 11:59 PM on March 31st they were running 4 trains a day, but would only be running 3 going forward.

Hope this helps!