February 1995 LSAT Section 2 Question 17

Consumer activist: By allowing major airlines to abandon, as they promptly did, all but their most profitable routes,...

AndrewArabie on May 11 at 06:49PM

Negation of C

If we negate C and it says "Policies that result in an increase in the number of flights to which consumers have easy access generally work to the disadvantage of consumers." That to me doesn't collapse the conclusion because the term "generally" allows it to be possible that this case is an exception to the rule. Did I negate it incorrectly?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on May 13 at 05:52PM

I think you did negate it correctly, and while the general rule aspect of it would give me pause, I'd argue it still kills the argument.

I would probably rephrase the negation of C as "more flights generally hurt consumers." I think we know that the representative must disagree with that. If more flights are generally bad for fliers, then her argument makes little sense that the change was good since it led to more flights.