Critical Reasoning

newton9 wrote:P: Pilot error contributes to majority of crashes. Airlines upgraded training programs by increasing hours of class room instruction and comm. skills. These measures cannot compensate for lack of actual flying exp.

C: Airlines should rethink their training approach.

My paraphrase: Measures employed cannot compensate for lack of actual flying time.

Here I am struck between [spoiler]C & D[/spoiler]. I want to make sure my analysis of C & D is accurate.

C: Since no of airline crashes are going to decrease if pilot training programs focus on actual flying times, this is going to strengthen the argument. But, this is not a necessary assumption.

D: Actual flying time is not an important contributor to pilot error --> then the conclusion that airlines should rethink their approach is significantly weakened.

OA is D, but not able to pick D in less than 2 min.

artistocrat wrote:Ron, please correct me if I am wrong, but I want to say that "number" of plane crashes is not the same as the rate of plane crashes due to pilot error (2/3). Is it safe to say that such a comparison is misleading, and hence a reason to rule out C? For example, the number of plane crashes might depend on the number of flights; perhaps the season is busy, or not. At any rate, something other than flight time could cause a change in the "number" of accidents, no?