Question

A regional airline plans to replace complimentary meals on short flights with meals for purchase. Critics argue that eliminating free meals will lead to a decline in customer satisfaction. This concern is supported by recent surveys. Nevertheless, implementing the change is unlikely to reduce overall satisfaction. The airline also plans to lower ticket prices, and \textit{this is likely to attract more price-sensitive travelers who are less concerned about free meals and more focused on overall affordability.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

• A. The first is an objection that has been raised against a certain plan; the second is a prediction that, if accurate, undermines the force of that objection.
• B. The first is a forecast about how consumers will respond to a proposed change; the second is a counterexample offered to challenge that forecast.
• C. The first is a hypothesis that the argument seeks to test; the second is evidence presented to support that hypothesis.
• D. The first is a consideration that weighs against a proposed policy; the second is a prediction that strengthens the case for adopting the policy.
• E. The first is an assumption that the argument later rejects; the second is an alternative explanation that supports that rejection.

Hint:

In boldface questions, first identify the main conclusion of the argument. Then, determine the relationship of each boldfaced statement to that conclusion. Is it evidence for the conclusion? Is it the conclusion itself? Is it an opposing viewpoint? Is it a consideration that the author must address?

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept
This is a "Boldface" Critical Reasoning question. The task is to analyze the logical structure of the argument and identify the specific role each boldfaced statement plays within that structure.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation
Let's break down the argument's components:

Plan/Policy: Replace free meals with purchased meals.
Boldface 1: "eliminating free meals will lead to a decline in customer satisfaction." This is a negative consequence or a drawback of the plan. It's a point against the policy, supported by critics and surveys. Thus, it's a "consideration that weighs against" the policy.
Author's Conclusion: The author disagrees with the critics and believes the plan is unlikely to reduce overall satisfaction.
Reasoning for Conclusion: The airline will also lower ticket prices.
Boldface 2: "this is likely to attract more price-sensitive travelers who are less concerned about free meals and more focused on overall affordability." This statement explains *why* lowering ticket prices will work to maintain overall satisfaction. It's a prediction about customer behavior that supports the author's conclusion and strengthens the argument in favor of the policy.
Step 3: Final Answer
Let's evaluate the options based on this analysis:

(A) The second part is incorrect. The prediction doesn't undermine the objection (the objection is still valid for some customers); rather, it explains why the objection is outweighed by another factor. The prediction strengthens the overall plan.
(B) BF1 is more than a forecast; it's a stated concern backed by evidence. BF2 is not a counterexample.
(C) BF1 is not a hypothesis the argument seeks to test; it's a concern the argument seeks to overcome.
(D) This option accurately describes the roles. BF1 is a consideration against the policy. BF2 is a prediction that supports the author's position, thereby strengthening the case for adopting the policy.
(E) BF1 is a consideration, not an assumption. The argument doesn't reject it but rather outweighs it.
Option (D) provides the most accurate description of the roles played by both boldfaced portions.