I simply cannot figure out the reasoning behing the answer. I don't see how D is the answer. How can the Consumer argue that the airlines decision to abandon less profitable routes worked as a disadvantage while the needed assumption is that at the time of the change, the airlines did have those less profitable routes in place?
Any explanation of why D is correct would help me greatly.
HELP! PT 14, Section 2, Question 18 Forum
-
chewdak
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:54 pm
Re: HELP! PT 14, Section 2, Question 18
At the time of change, certain routes are in place.
Following the change, those routes disappear.
The change she describes is in government regulations, not the change in the routes themselves.
Just because the airline is no longer obliged to fly somewhere does not mean it will immediately change its established schedules.
Following the change, those routes disappear.
The change she describes is in government regulations, not the change in the routes themselves.
Just because the airline is no longer obliged to fly somewhere does not mean it will immediately change its established schedules.
-
theZeigs
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm
Re: HELP! PT 14, Section 2, Question 18
An assumption IS that there is a change in routes, but the assumption is NOT "that at the time of the change, the airlines did have those less profitable routes in place?"
The stimulus says that these (less profitable) routes were in place:
"By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they did, all but their most profitable routes..."
The assumption I prephrased was that "the change in routes caused fewer flights to non-large metropolitan airport, thereby disadvantaging people who don't have access to these large metro airports," or, in other words, "the more profitable routes take you to large metropolitan airports." [One thing to note here is that I find this to happen a lot on LR questions, where an assumption made by one speaker is also made by the second. Often this is not the assumption in question, as is the case here.]
But another assumption is that the government's decision was the cause of the change, i.e. without the decision taking place, the change wouldn't have, so therefore the government was making it such that the airlines had to maintain those less popular routes. As chewdak said:
The stimulus says that these (less profitable) routes were in place:
"By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they did, all but their most profitable routes..."
The assumption I prephrased was that "the change in routes caused fewer flights to non-large metropolitan airport, thereby disadvantaging people who don't have access to these large metro airports," or, in other words, "the more profitable routes take you to large metropolitan airports." [One thing to note here is that I find this to happen a lot on LR questions, where an assumption made by one speaker is also made by the second. Often this is not the assumption in question, as is the case here.]
But another assumption is that the government's decision was the cause of the change, i.e. without the decision taking place, the change wouldn't have, so therefore the government was making it such that the airlines had to maintain those less popular routes. As chewdak said:
chewdak wrote:At the time of change, certain routes are in place.
Following the change, those routes disappear.
The change she describes is in government regulations, not the change in the routes themselves.
Just because the airline is no longer obliged to fly somewhere does not mean it will immediately change its established schedules.
