Q17 - Consumer Activist: By allowing major

[KakaJaja]

Hey I know that C is an assumption, but I didn't choose it because I could not see there is any possibility that C is not true in life. I mean increase in the number of flights certainly benefits the consumers, isn't it? Can anyone give me an example that more flights actually hurts the consumers?

Thank you!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're thinking that "all other things being equal, wouldn't more flights be objectively better"?

The problem with that is that "all other things" are NOT equal. We are trading a smaller number of major airline flights for a larger number of regional airline flights.

Is more necessarily better in that regard?

The regional airline flights might be more expensive, more prone to delays, more prone to turbulence/crashing (if the regional airlines' planes are smaller).

So it might be that consumers would consider it more advantageous to have 5 daily flights from a major airline than to have 10 daily flights from some sketchy and/or expensive regional airlines.

And if we really wanted to get exotic with our counterexamples, we could even argue that "all other things being equal, more flights are not necessarily objectively better".

Do we have to believe that 10 flights (same quality / same price) is more advantageous than 5 flights?

Not necessarily for everyone - people who have trouble making decisions might find it more advantageous to have fewer options. It simplifies their decision making process.

If you're thinking, "Patrick, you sound crazy. LSAT doesn't want me to think crazy thoughts, do they?"

No. But on Necessary Assumption, you will sometimes have to state what most people would consider "obvious". That's just the task at hand.

Don't think that when we call something an "assumption" that we're accusing that idea of being very fishy. We're just saying that an idea is missing from the logical structure of the argument.

Extreme example:
Putting kittens into an active volcano kills them.
Thus, you shouldn't put kittens into an active volcano.

What's the assumption?

(You shouldn't kill kittens)

Just because we all know that you shouldn't kill kittens, it was still an assumption -- a missing premise in the mathematical logic of how you would get from the premise to the conclusion.

Most assumptions are very debatable ideas, but now and then you'll see LSAT forcing you to provide an assumption that more or less sounds like "common sense".

If we return to Q17 and look at the argument core we have this:

CONC: De-regulating has worked to the ADVANTAGE of everyone who lacks access to a large airport.

PREM: There are now more flights into small airports than there used to be.

So the missing bridge is connecting "more flights" to "advantage".

(And, as I think you indicated, this was obvious to you -- so obvious that you didn't want to pick it).

Just remember how the Negation Test can clinch the correct answer on Nec. Assump.

If we negate (C), it would say that "policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access DO generally work to the disadvantage of consumers". Would this negation weaken the argument? TOTALLY! So it must be the correct answer.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.

[ban2110]

Can someone please explain why (A) is not a necessary assumption?

I took the conclusion of the industry representative's statement as: "There are more flights now than before the change" and so narrowed my choices down to (A) and (C). I eventually chose (A) only because once I negated it, it seemed to weaken the IR's statement by implying that there are fewer flights now than before. I eliminated (C) because though I thought it was necessary, I thought it was necessary for the consumer activist's argument.

I'm terribly confused about which argument I'm supposed to be mainly focused on.

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

It is a topsy-turvy question stem / stimulus for sure.

The question stem asks about the IR's argument, so it's HIS premise and conclusion we must first find.

Confusingly, though, the IR only says 1 thing, the factual premise that most small airports now have more flights than they did before the regulatory change.

So what's the IR's conclusion?

We have to see that when the IR begins by saying "on the contrary", the IR is disagreeing with the last thing the CA said.

The CA last said "the regulatory change has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to a large metropolitan airport".

Since the IR begins with "on the contrary", we need to think of the IR's conclusion as the CONTRARY of the CA's conclusion.

So, this is the IR's argument core:
CONC - the regulatory change has worked to the advantage (or "NOT worked to the DISadvantage") of people who lack access to large metropolitan airports.
why?
PREM - because most small airports now have more flights than they did before the regulatory change.

Hopefully you can see why (C) is incredibly relevant to both the wording of the conclusion and the wording of the premise of the IR's argument.

If not, re-read the previous explanation and then see if you still have questions.

In terms of (A), like so many Necessary Assumption answers, it's the extreme word that kills it.

Does the IR have to assume that ALL small airports have more flights now than they did before the regulatory change?

No. The IR only said that MOST small airports now have more flights. So he left room for exceptions.

If you were to negate (A), it would say "SOME small airports have fewer flights now than they did before". Would that crush the argument? No, because the IR only claimed that most small airports had more flights.

The other problem with (A), as an LSAT answer, is that it would be attacking the accuracy of the premise. We know that's not LSAT's main game. Their game is attacking the accuracy of the CONNECTION between premise and conclusion.

Is it fair to conclude on the basis of "more flights" that customers are "not disadvantaged"? This is what (C) is addressing.

Hope this helps.

[pewals13]

Task:

Identify what needs to be true in order for the industry representative to effectively answer the consumer activist's claim

Core:
The question stem only concerns the argument of the industry rep

Because regional airlines have filled the void left by major ones, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the airline deregulation
=>
The government's decision to cease regulation has not worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to a large metropolitan airport

Gaps:

Just because there are more flights doesn't mean there isn't a disadvantage. Maybe regional airlines aren't as safe because their pilots have less experience.

Answer Choices:

(A) Out of Scope (too strong): Does it have to be true that no small airport has fewer flights in order for the deregulation not to have worked to the disadvantage of everyone without access to a large metropolitan airport? No. Even if there is one airport that has fewer flights the argument's conclusion, that not everyone without access to a large airport was disadvantaged, could still hold.

(B) Premise Booster: You don't need to assume that every major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports in order for the premises to justify the conclusion. Maybe there was one route to a small airport that was not abandoned. So what? If anything, this would appear to weaken the conclusion by emphasizing the extent to which deregulation reduced major airline service to small airports. Remember that a necessary assumption will always strengthen an argument.

(C) CORRECT: This answer choice directly addresses the implications of the evidence provided by the industry representative's argument. Consider the negation- if policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access DO generally work to the disadvantage of consumers, then the industry representative's argument (that more regional flights at small airports means not everyone is disadvantaged) is no longer an effective answer to the consumer advocate's claims.

(D) Out of scope (relevance): Cost is irrelevant, although this would strengthen the argument, it is not necessary. There could be a myriad of other advantages to having more regional flights.

(E) Out of scope (relevance): Does it have to be true that any increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-advantage of consumers? The applicability of this answer is questionable because you have no idea whether the increase in regional flights resulted in an increase in competition.