Proposed new safety rules for Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. In...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Proposed new safety rules for Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. The city's operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Proposed new safety rules for Beach City airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. |
|
| In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. |
|
| The city's operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. |
|
| Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a cause (safety rules lengthening takeoff times), shows the immediate effect (10% fewer flights), establishes the connection between flights and city revenue (tourists fly in and generate tax revenue), then concludes that fewer flights will hurt the city budget.
Main Conclusion:
The proposed safety rules will reduce revenue available for Beach City's operating budget.
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that fewer flights automatically means fewer tourists and less revenue. It connects: Safety Rules → Fewer Flights → Fewer Tourists → Less Tax Revenue → Reduced Budget. The logic depends on assuming no other factors could offset the flight reduction.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for their conclusion to hold. The author concludes that fewer flights will lead to reduced city revenue.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific quantitative claims (10% fewer flights) and connects this to qualitative impacts (reduced revenue). The key entities are flights, tourists, tourist spending, taxes, and city budget.
Strategy
To find assumptions, we need to identify ways the conclusion could fail even if all the stated facts remain true. The argument jumps from 'fewer flights' to 'reduced city revenue' - what gaps need to be filled? We need to think about what could break this chain: fewer flights → fewer tourists → less spending → less tax revenue → reduced budget.
This discusses whether there are currently periods with longer intervals between flights. This isn't necessary for the argument to work. Even if there are already some periods with longer gaps, implementing the new rules would still create the overall 10% reduction in daily flights that the argument is based on. The timing distribution throughout the day doesn't affect the core logic.
This focuses on whether tourists are visiting Beach City specifically versus neighboring communities. While this might affect the magnitude of economic impact, it's not essential for the basic argument. Even if some tourists have other primary destinations, fewer total tourists would still mean less spending in Beach City and reduced tax revenue.
This discusses whether the revenue reduction comes from tourists who spend little versus those who spend a lot. The argument doesn't make claims about which types of tourists will be affected or their relative spending patterns. The conclusion simply links fewer flights to reduced revenue without needing to assume anything about tourist spending categories.
This suggests the safety rules are the only cost-effective way to improve safety. This is completely irrelevant to the argument's conclusion. The argument takes the implementation of safety rules as given and focuses on their economic consequences, not whether they're the best safety option.
This assumes that airlines won't respond to fewer flight slots by increasing passengers per flight. This is absolutely critical. If airlines used bigger planes or filled existing planes more completely, the total number of tourists could stay the same despite fewer flights. This would break the entire chain of logic from 'fewer flights' to 'reduced revenue.' Without this assumption, the conclusion completely fails.