Editorial: Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing air traffic, analysts propose building a second airport to...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Editorial:

Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing air traffic, analysts propose building a second airport to benefit our city's economy by allowing more flights and hence attracting more visitors. But this plan would not succeed. If flights to different cities were inconveniently divided between two airports, fewer travelers would make flight connections in our city.

Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the editorial's argument that the plan would not succeed?

A reduction in travelers flying to a city's airport merely to make flight connections does not preclude a significant increase in travelers visiting the city itself.

The number of flights to an airport typically increases as the number of travelers making flight connections increases.

Building a second airport would not benefit the city's economy unless it increased the number of travelers through the city's airport.

If fewer travelers make flight connections through an airport, the number of flights through that airport typically declines.

Some of the cities that, for their size, attract relatively large numbers of visitors have only one airport.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Since our city's airport is too small to handle increasing air traffic, analysts propose building a second airport to benefit our city's economy by allowing more flights and hence attracting more visitors.	What it says: Current airport can't handle growing traffic, so analysts want a second airport to boost the economy through more flights and visitors What it does: Sets up the background problem and introduces the proposed solution What it is: Context and analysts' proposal Visualization: Current airport: 100 flights/day (at capacity) → Second airport plan: 180 flights/day total → More visitors → Economic benefit
But this plan would not succeed.	What it says: The editorial writer disagrees with the analysts' proposed solution What it does: Directly opposes the analysts' proposal and signals the author's main position What it is: Author's main conclusion
If flights to different cities were inconveniently divided between two airports, fewer travelers would make flight connections in our city.	What it says: Splitting flights between two airports would make connections harder, reducing connecting passengers What it does: Provides the reasoning behind why the author thinks the plan won't work What it is: Author's supporting premise Visualization: Current: 50 connecting passengers/day (all flights at one airport) → With two airports: 20 connecting passengers/day (inconvenient to transfer between airports)

Argument Flow:

The editorial starts by acknowledging a problem (airport too small) and the analysts' proposed solution (build a second airport). The author then states their disagreement and provides a reason why the plan would backfire - splitting flights between airports would hurt connection traffic.

Main Conclusion:

The plan to build a second airport would not succeed

Logical Structure:

The author uses a cause-and-effect argument: IF flights are divided between two airports → THEN connections become inconvenient → THEN fewer connecting travelers → THEREFORE the plan fails. The reasoning assumes that connecting passengers are crucial to the airport's success and that inconvenience would significantly reduce their numbers.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the editorial's conclusion that the two-airport plan would not succeed

Precision of Claims

The editorial makes a specific claim about WHY the plan won't work: fewer travelers will make connections because flights will be inconveniently divided between airports. We need to attack either this reasoning or show the plan could succeed despite this issue

Strategy

To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that either: (1) show that having two airports wouldn't actually reduce connecting passengers, (2) demonstrate that the benefits of more flights/visitors would outweigh any loss in connecting passengers, or (3) reveal that the connection problem could be solved or minimized

Answer Choices Explained

A reduction in travelers flying to a city's airport merely to make flight connections does not preclude a significant increase in travelers visiting the city itself.

This choice directly attacks the editorial's core assumption. The editorial argues the plan fails because fewer people will make connections, but this choice shows that losing connecting passengers doesn't necessarily mean the plan fails. Even if connections drop, the city could still benefit economically from more direct visitors. This creates a major gap in the editorial's reasoning - we assumed that any reduction in connecting passengers would doom the entire plan, but that's not necessarily true. The economic benefits could come from other sources. This effectively weakens the argument.

The number of flights to an airport typically increases as the number of travelers making flight connections increases.

This tells us that more connections lead to more flights, but this doesn't help weaken the editorial's argument. The editorial already acknowledges that flights would be inconveniently divided between airports, leading to fewer connections. This choice actually supports the editorial's concern that fewer connections would be problematic, since it suggests fewer connections mean fewer flights overall.

Building a second airport would not benefit the city's economy unless it increased the number of travelers through the city's airport.

This choice actually strengthens the editorial's position rather than weakening it. It states that the second airport only benefits the economy if it increases travelers through the airport. Since the editorial argues that the plan would reduce connecting travelers, this choice supports the conclusion that the plan wouldn't succeed economically.

If fewer travelers make flight connections through an airport, the number of flights through that airport typically declines.

Similar to choice B, this reinforces the editorial's concerns. If fewer connections lead to fewer flights (as this choice suggests), then the editorial's prediction that inconvenient connections would hurt the airport becomes more credible. This doesn't weaken the argument - it makes the editorial's reasoning stronger.

Some of the cities that, for their size, attract relatively large numbers of visitors have only one airport.

This is irrelevant to the specific argument about whether a two-airport plan would succeed. The fact that some cities with one airport attract visitors doesn't tell us anything about whether splitting flights between two airports in this particular city would work or fail. It's a tangential point that doesn't address the editorial's reasoning.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...