I got this questions right. I believe it is a fairly straight forward. However, I saw A as a very good answer.
Since the argument does say, in a nutshell: The service is unprofitable so the town officials urged everyone to use the airline service more frequently so they will stay in town. However, we shouldnt listen to the officials, because they went on a trip and didnt use the service.
E is obvious, yet I do see an assumption made by the Pundit that all the townspeople will need to do is buy more tickets and that will cure the profit issue for the airline. Which to me is a flawed assumption because their could be alot of reasons they are not making a profit.
Ultimately, I moved past A because it mentions "...continued air service economically feasible" which does not necessary mean profitable.
Anyway, I was hoping for some more insight or confirmation of my insight.
Thank you
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- cdjmarmon
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 59
- Joined: July 12th, 2011
-
- demetri.blaisdell
-
Thanks Received: 161
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 198
- Joined: January 26th, 2011
Re: Q8 - Pundit: The only airline providing
cdjmarmon,
I think you bring up a good point. It's true that the town officials' argument does make the assumption that increased use will at least help with profitability (I'm not sure if that's such an unreasonable assumption but they did make it). However, the key here is to differentiate between the pundit's argument and the town officials' argument. The pundit's argument is that we shouldn't follow the town officials' advice because they don't practice what they preach. That argument suffers from the problem you see in (E).
(A) might be a problem with the town officials' argument (although they never said it would be sufficient) but not with the pundit's argument.
(B) is not (necessarily) assumed by the pundit. Her argument works fine without this assumption.
(C) is out of scope. It's not the source of the money that matters but rather where they choose to spend it.
(D) would actually hurt the argument. If airline travel is the cheaper option, it seems unlikely that the airline would be suffering at all.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Demetri
I think you bring up a good point. It's true that the town officials' argument does make the assumption that increased use will at least help with profitability (I'm not sure if that's such an unreasonable assumption but they did make it). However, the key here is to differentiate between the pundit's argument and the town officials' argument. The pundit's argument is that we shouldn't follow the town officials' advice because they don't practice what they preach. That argument suffers from the problem you see in (E).
(A) might be a problem with the town officials' argument (although they never said it would be sufficient) but not with the pundit's argument.
(B) is not (necessarily) assumed by the pundit. Her argument works fine without this assumption.
(C) is out of scope. It's not the source of the money that matters but rather where they choose to spend it.
(D) would actually hurt the argument. If airline travel is the cheaper option, it seems unlikely that the airline would be suffering at all.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Demetri
2 posts Page 1 of 1