#7 - Passenger volume in the airline industry has declined

[curiosity]

So I realize this was supposed to be a relatively easy question, but I actually narrowed down the answer choices to B and E and chose the latter, which is incorrect. I would like to know why we should choose B over E. I thought that both of them justified the timing.

Is E incorrect because it depends on assuming that the airports that are expanding now are the airports that survive? Also, perhaps there is a distinction between airline and airports?

Or, alternatively, is E incorrect because we are supposed to realize that the language is oriented towards the future i.e.: "sustained decline" "could lead," but at the same time the stimulus says that it has declined over the "past two years" which could be read as a sustained decline.

Sorry for all the questions. Thanks in advance for your help!

[Jon Denning]

Hey curiosity,

Thanks for the question! You're right, this is a pretty simple Strengthen question, where we simply need to support the reasoning of beginning to expand airports now, despite the volume necessitating expansion not existing for another five years.

So why might airports expand now? Certainly there could be lots of reasons (the one that occurred to me was that maybe it takes several years to complete the expansion, meaning they need to start early to be ready for the increased volume), but anything that helps justify the move presently would work. Answer choice B provides that potential justification by saying that working when volume is low (i.e. now) allows the work to be done with little inconvenience to the public/travelers. So doing it now makes the most sense, as opposed to waiting and suffering public inconveniences.

Answer choice E, on the other hand, has nothing to do with airport construction at all, and certainly wouldn't explain why airports should start expanding now, even with low volume. It's also not about airport survival, but rather airline survival...but again, totally irrelevant to the conclusion. There's simply no way to use that to support expanding airports right now during low-volume times.

So keep in mind what you're trying to accomplish--finding a reason why a decision might be a good one, in this case--and don't go beyond the answer choice in question in trying to determine whether it's correct or not.

I hope that helps!

[curiosity]

Thanks, makes sense. I think I just read too much into it. I was also thinking that customer dissatisfaction/satisfaction was out of scope, but this is not a "Must be True" Family kind of question so we can pull outside info in.

[Jon Denning]

Exactly! Outside information is fine in question types where you use the answers to accomplish something (weaken, strengthen, resolve, etc), so simply measure what the new information accomplishes and if it succeeds at the required task.

Thanks!

[lsatstudying11]

Hello!

For this question, I got stuck on the word 'only.' If the only thing that warrants expansion is more air traffic volume and we currently have lower rates of air traffic volume, how could we warrant expansion? I guess I am wondering how it is even possible to provide support to this argument when it seems like the one requirement needed for a warranted expansion is not met? I think I might be ignoring the fact that things will change in five years, but I am struggling to see how what will happen five years from now is actually relevant to what is currently happening with air travel now. I guess what I am thinking is, taken literally, air traffic volume is not increasing now, so expansion is not warranted now. Where am I going wrong here? Thank you!!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi studying,

You are right that the language of the stimulus says that expansion is only warranted by increases in air traffic volume. However, the stimulus also admits that there will be an increase in the air traffic volume. We don't know how long or complex construction will be. Answer choice (B) gives us a reason that we might want to build before the actual increase occurs. Remember that sufficient/necessary reasoning does not require a certain time order. The sufficient could occur before the necessary condition, vice versa, or they could even occur at the same time. There's both a (future) increase in volume and a (current) expansion. The answer choice gives us a reason that the time difference would make sense, and supports the idea that expansion makes sense before the necessary growth.

Hope that helps!