Q18 - Consumer activist: By allowing

[Raiderblue17]

Ok I was between C and D.

Obviously government intervention helped keep flight options available that are no longer available after deregulation.

So I can GUESS that C is incorrect because it uses the term 'almost always' and NOWHERE in the argument does an implication come about denying or accepting the idea of regulation being an 'advantage' to consumers.

More input and feedback would be appreciated

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a good question with some fun wrong answer choices (yes that is an insight into LSAT instructor nerdiness that I find this kind of thing fun). This an assumption family question so let's pull out the core:

Gov. allowed airlines to stop less profitable routes (and they did) ---> Gov's decision disadvantaged those that live away from major cities

The gap I see here relates to the term shift between profitable routes and major cities. Because this is a necessary assumption question, though, don't spend too much time refining your thoughts on the gap.

(D) is necessary assumption even though it doesn't address the gap I came up with above. Try the negation test. If the government requirements didn't have anything to do with the airline companies' decisions, then can we conclude the government requirements disadvantaged people?

(A) actually weakens the activist's argument. If there was no advantage before, there's no way the government decision disadvantaged consumers.

(B) is well out of scope. The activist doesn't say it should be reversed.

(C) is also out of scope. It has two problems that we can learn a lot from. The biggest issue is that it talks about regulation of industry (all industry) as opposed to the airline industry---far too broad for a necessary assumption. The other issue is that it has an improper negation. Just because regulation is advantageous does not mean that deregulation is disadvantageous! Maybe the only thing better than regulation is deregulation.

(E) is out of scope. The activist makes no mention of regional airlines. This might weaken the industry rebuttal but it is not a necessary assumption for the activist's argument.

I hope that getting deep in to these wrong answer choices helps you understand some wrong answer tendencies (especially in (C)). Thank you very much for posting this question. There is some great material here. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[matthew.mainen]

This seems like a question that really challenges your common sense and forces you instead to utilize only logic.

First things first, I am reading the prompt as implying that prior to deregulation, airlines were prohibited from flying on only their most profitable flights. They had to fly on some less profitable routes. This is because the term "by allowing" seems to be a causative statement essentially saying that because of the deregulation (cause), airlines no longer have to fly on less profitable routes (effect).

I am on the fence about this though. Isn't it possible for a new set of rules to give you at least some of the same allowances as the previous set of rules? If this is the case, then even when air travel was regulated, the companies many have been allowed to restrict travel only to their most profitable routes, and this allowance was carried over as a result of deregulation.

Assuming that Scenario 1 is the case, that prior to deregulation were in fact required to fly on less profitable routes, then this is where I see common sense challenged in favor of cold logic. Just because the law says something doesn't mean that the airlines will follow it. Obviously, this would never happen in the United States. But the prompt doesn't say what country the airlines are in. Maybe it's in Somalia or a made up country where the government has even less authority on matters such as air traffic. If that's the case, there may be regulations on the book that airlines can very easily get away with ignoring. From seen through this perspective, it's very easy now to imagine, in fact almost impossible not to, how there can be alternative motives to maintaining less profitable routes prior to deregulation. And for whatever reasons, the disappearance of these motives coincided with deregulation.

Scenario 2 is less convoluted, but again I am getting the impression that it isn't the case. If the airlines were already allowed to fly only on their most profitable routes to begin with, then clearly government requirements were not a motivating factor.

Please advise

[demetri.blaisdell]

You are deep in to this problem, matthew.mainen. I like seeing students wrestle with the finer points, though.

Regarding your comment, this is how I see the consumer activist's statement:

1) The government decided to cease regulation.
2) This included allowing major airlines to drop all but their most profitable routes.
3) Major airlines did in fact drop these routes.
4) Therefore, the regulations caused the change in routes.

(D) focuses on the causal connection between (2) and (3) which is exactly what you are talking about. If it's a coincidence that dropping the regulation happened at the same time the airlines changed their routes, then the activist's argument falls apart. So what you are saying is right: if airlines didn't notice or care about the regulation, then the regulations didn't cause the lack in service.

I think I may be missing part of what you are saying. Can you help me understand?

Demetri

[WaltGrace1983]

So is the negation of (D) essentially, "At the time of the regulatory change, the major airlines were not maintaining their least profitable routes because of the govt?" In other words, "the govt. didn't have anything to do with the airlines decision to drop its least profitable routes." I understand why the all the incorrect ones are wrong, but I am just trying to make sure I get (D) because a question like this will definitely come up again.

(D) is basically asserting that there is a causal relationship between the govt.'s decision to cease regulation and the airlines' decision to drop its least profitable routes. Otherwise, if we negate this, we get something that says the govt. wasn't involved and it was perhaps just a coincidence.

[christine.defenbaugh]

You've got it, WaltGrace1983!

(D) tells us that there is some causal connection between the government regs and maintaining the less profitable routes. And that, in turn, tells us there is some causal connection between deregulation and dropping the less profitable routes. Negating it gives us a situation where deregulation had no causal connection whatsoever with dropping the less profitable routes.

If that's true, then the argument completely falls apart. We can't use that event as evidence to support a conclusion about the deregulation's effects on people. If airlines just decided completely independently to drop those lines, we can't pin that on deregulation!

Great work!