IMO: D

OA Plz.

Undisputedly D

BTW wat is Source: Master The GMAT 2010

is it new book of manhatten apart from those 8 books OR their online contents...?

Good one..
IMO -- A (Not sure though)

martin.jonson007 wrote:BTW wat is Source: Master The GMAT 2010

is it new book of manhatten apart from those 8 books OR their online contents...?

No

Its Peterson's

A looks better than others.

picked B at first but I agree with the OA. C is the answer.

This is cause effect reasoning..

The military decision must have been to reduce the number of accidents.

RA --> MD

"A supporting answer should support the claim or defend the claim".

C says the warfare is going to escalate.
So the military's decision is not because of the decrease in the warfare.

This option defends/strengthens the argument by proving that an alternative cause is not true.

Though it is easy to backtrack the answer if we know one.....I think the reasoning might help.
Please correct me if I'm wrong

I would go with option C.

If chemical warfare is to increase in the near future, then military has every reason not to stop the shots. But as the passage suggests, the military has stopped the shots. hence there would be some other reason which made military take this decision. In this case, it is the pilot error in the commercial airline accidents as suggested by the conclusion. So, the reasoning fits the bill perfectly.

I don't see any choices as an option which can strengthen the cause more than C.

Military recently stopped requiring its pilots to obtain immunization shots against chemical warfare agents.

What is the meaning of this sentence. I could not understand.

I picked D at first then I saw the OA as C. I can see why. The fact that the militairy no longer requires immunization shot for it's pilots despite a growing threat appears to be contradictory. That can only mean that the real reason is to support the argument in reducing accidents.[/spoiler]

@akhilesh: Military requires its pilots to get the vaccines ("immunized shots") so that they become immune to the chemical warfare agents. The passage states that the military stopped doing this e.g. Making sure whether the pilots are taking the shots/vaccines.
Hope you got the meaning now.

akhp77 wrote:Military recently stopped requiring its pilots to obtain immunization shots against chemical warfare agents.

What is the meaning of this sentence. I could not understand.

military require its pilots obtain immunization shots in order to prevent them from chemical warfare agents. According to C, chemical agents warfare is likely to happen. However, military still stop requiring its pilots obtain immunization shots. Therefore, It might help protect something else. in this case, it might protect customers in commercial plain.

You may argue, it stops for other reasons. But, the answer choice somewhat support the conclusion. even a little. therefore, it is the right answer.

Conclusion: Must reduce the number of commercial accidents
We have to support it.

immunization shots -> dizzy spells -> pilot error -> accident

immunization shots prevent chemical warfare
immunization shots stopped => less pilot error -> less accident

If chemical warfare increase, pilot require more immunization shots -> more accident
To reduce accident => stop shots



I am still not very much clear.

akhpad wrote:Source: Master The GMAT 2010 [Peterson's]

Question is in image



OA: C

Please explain.

if its the inferrence question it would make sense for answer C
using ISP against Ch War >>> accident
stop accidents> stop using ISP >>>> CH war increased
i chose A for this answer.
did it several time and never understood and now cant understand why C for support question