Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no19% picked this

   No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation

   The author hedged his wording a little and said that "there are more flights into and out of most small airports". So we can't say he was assuming that all the small airports had the same or more as before.

   19%
2. B

   Too Strong: each6% picked this

   When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all

   The author hedged his wording a little and said that "where major airlines moved out", suggesting that in some places major airlines did not move out. So we can't say he was assuming that all major airlines abandoned all their less-profitable routes. It wouldn't hurt the argument in the slightest if there were one major airline that kept one of its less-profitable routes.

   6%
3. C

   Correct61% picked this

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

   Why this is right

   This is a weird hybrid of Linking and Defending. As we predicted, there are linking assumptions like "more flights, via regional airlines = an advantage". This answer is stupidly presenting that as "more flights, via regional airlines = not a disadvantage". Whenever we see a ruling-out "not" in a Necessary Assumption answer, we get very enticed, since so many correct answers have that form. We also react by negating it. If we remove the "not", does it become an objection? "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". That would definitely weaken. After all, the government's policy change resulted in an increase in the number of flights at these smaller airports. The argument concerns "everyone who lacks access to a large metro airport", so the idea is that they easy access to these small airports". If the policy change generally worked to the disadvantage of consumers, then the activist was correct! This basically body slams the Industry Rep's conclusion that "On the contrary, it was to everyone's advantage!"

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   61%
4. D

   Strengthens vs. Necessary9% picked this

   Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they

   This certainly would add more credence to the representative's claim that this policy change has resulted in a more beneficial situation than before. But it's not needed. The author's argument could work merely if there are more flight options than before. As long as there is any improvement (that isn't offset by some negative), the rep can argue that it's been a net gain. If we negate this and say, "the regional airlines don't charge less for a given route than the major airlines did", that doesn't weaken. If the negation said, "the regional airlines do charge more", then that would weaken.

   9%
5. E

   Too Strong: any6% picked this

   Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to

   On any test earlier than PT70 or so, we'd be safe rejecting this answer by thinking, "Whoa, this is WAY too strong. The author is only talking about one narrow situation within the airline/airport industry. She hasn't committed to some sweeping principle that holds true in all fields." But on modern LSATs, the correct answer to Necessary Assumption is often a conditional reasoning move like this, so our job is to think about whether this conditional reasoning move matches a reasoning move our author made in the argument. policy leads to an increase ? to the long-term in # of competitors in a field adv of consumers Did this policy change lead to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field? It's unclear. Where major airlines moved out, regional airlines moved in. But we have no idea whether the before or the after involves more airlines. The author's reasoning move is more like, "If a policy change leads to there being more flights in small airports than before, then it's to the advantage of everyone who lacks access to a large metropolitan airport".

   6%