CR: Effective Reasoning

[prakhar_au]

I don't have OA available for this. Any experts' input on the following?? Please advise.

Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes, the government’s decision to cease regulation of the airline industry has worked to the disadvantage of everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport.
Industry representative: On the contrary, where major airlines moved out, regional airlines have moved in and, as a consequence, there are more flights into and out of most small airports now than before the change in regulatory policy.

The industry representative’s argument will not provide an effective answer to the consumer activist’s claim unless which one of the following is true?

(A) No small airport has fewer flights now than it did before the change in policy regarding regulation of the airline industry.
(B) When permitted to do so by changes in regulatory policy, each major airline abandoned all but large metropolitan airports.
(C) Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to the disadvantage of consumers.
(D) Regional airlines charge less to fly a given route now than the major airlines charged when they flew the same route.
(E) Any policy that leads to an increase in the number of competitors in a given field works to the long-term advantage of consumers.

[tim]

D is totally the answer you should predict on this one. CA says deregulation harmed people far from large city airports, IR says not the case because there are more flights now. This only keeps from being a disadvantage if those flights are attractively priced, so we're looking for the answer that does that..

[jyothi h]

D is totally the answer you should predict on this one. CA says deregulation harmed people far from large city airports, IR says not the case because there are more flights now. This only keeps from being a disadvantage if those flights are attractively priced, so we're looking for the answer that does that..

I have a doubt on this one. C seems more close to addressing the consumer activists claim than does D. Although I did not feel that C was a perfect answer either , but seemed to talk about the issue .
Activist claims that it is a disadvantage for everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport . I thought we need to address the issue of "access to Large Airport" .
D does talk about an advantage of the cost savings for the consumer . But this is not what the activist is bothered about.

Based on my above reasoning I ruled out D.
Could you please clarify as to , what is wrong with my reasoning mentioned above and what am I missing ?

[jlucero]

I have a doubt on this one. C seems more close to addressing the consumer activists claim than does D. Although I did not feel that C was a perfect answer either , but seemed to talk about the issue .
Activist claims that it is a disadvantage for everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport . I thought we need to address the issue of "access to Large Airport" .
D does talk about an advantage of the cost savings for the consumer . But this is not what the activist is bothered about.

Based on my above reasoning I ruled out D.
Could you please clarify as to , what is wrong with my reasoning mentioned above and what am I missing ?

The activist is bothered for "everyone who lacks access to large metropolitan airport", so the scope of this argument does indeed center only on people with no access to large airports. When the industry representative countered by saying that these people will now be served by regional airlines, he implies that the regional airlines and major airlines will provide similar service at similar costs. D does address the issue of people not next to large airports, because the IR connects regional airlines to smaller airports. So if regional airports will service smaller airports, we need to make sure that they provide similar levels of service.

C's problem is that it may be true, but doesn't have to be true. The question asks us for which statement MUST be true. Maybe more flights don't work to the advantage of consumers. Maybe they do. But this isn't necessary within the argument, so it can't be correct.