BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

assumption

Expert replies
by amitu » Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:59 am
The greatest safety risk for passengers traveling on commercial passenger airplanes is that of a midair collision. Commercial passenger airplanes can be equipped with a collision-avoidance radar system that provide with information about the proximity of other airplanes. Because the system warns pilots to take evasive action when it indicates a possible collision, passengers are safer on airplanes equipped with the system than on comparable airplanes not so equipped, even though the system frequently warms pilots to evade phantom airplanes.
10. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Passengers feel no safer on airplanes equipped with the radar system than on comparable airplanes not so equipped.
(B) Warnings given by a collision-avoidance system about phantom airplanes are not caused by distorted radar signals.
(C) The frequency of invalid warnings will not cause pilots routinely to disregard the system's warnings.
(D) Commercial passenger airplanes are not the only planes that can be equipped with collision-avoidance system.

why A is wrong .

OA to come

one more

The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. So individuals who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.
Which one of the following, if true, most weaken the argument?
(A) The differences in average fat intake between countries are often due to the varying makeup of traditional diets.
(B) The countries with a high average fat intake tend to be among the wealthiest in the world.
(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.
(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.
(E) An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.

why no C

OA to come
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by fibbonnaci » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:55 am
Please post one question per thread. It improves clarity for the users and does not clutter the thread. As a start you can try reading the forums rule thread before posting.
Join the discussion

by kvcpk » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:00 am
For the first question - there is no mentioning of passengers' feelings in the passage. Moreover, I believe that A is contradicting the conclusion.

IMO C
Join the discussion

by gmat1011 » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:18 am
For the average fat intake --- low incidence of cancer question I think the answer is E... the question is just about an "average" so individuals will be below and above the average... E puts this across

C, the other close challenger is less appropriate than E as it is referring to a cause of death... the question is just about incidence of cancer (not about resultant death which may or may not happen)....
Join the discussion

by yongpau_millenium » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:04 am
Not sure why there is no (E) in the option choice.
I will go with (C)

Here are my reasoning:
(A) Passengers feel no safer on airplanes equipped with the radar system than on comparable airplanes not so equipped.
Passanger's feeling is not relevant. The argument concerns about the safety
(B) Warnings given by a collision-avoidance system about phantom airplanes are not caused by distorted radar signals.
Does not really matter what causes the phantom airplanes. Not relevant
(C) The frequency of invalid warnings will not cause pilots routinely to disregard the system's warnings.
Use negation technique ==> if the frequency of invalid warning cause pilots to disregard the system's warnings, then the flight is not safe. ==> Correct
(D) Commercial passenger airplanes are not the only planes that can be equipped with collision-avoidance system.
Negation technique ==> commercial airlines are equipped with the system ==> does not weaken the argument, since the argument's scope is only commercial airline

cheers,
Pau
Join the discussion

by outreach » Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:22 am
D.
The argument conveys that highest incidence of cancer might be due to high levels of polution. not necessarily due to fat intake. argument is weakened. it also says that they are among highest levels ruling out countries with low intake.

C says that cancer is cause of deaths in low intake countries. we cant rule out that in high intake countires, cancer may be prominent.
amitu wrote: one more

The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. So individuals who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.
Which one of the following, if true, most weaken the argument?
(A) The differences in average fat intake between countries are often due to the varying makeup of traditional diets.
(B) The countries with a high average fat intake tend to be among the wealthiest in the world.
(C) Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.
(D) The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with highest levels of environmental pollution.
(E) An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.

why no C

OA to come
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by uwhusky » Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:32 am
A is wrong because its information is out of scope and irrelevant to the argument and its premises.

(A) Passengers feel no safer on airplanes equipped with the radar system than on comparable airplanes not so equipped.

The argument in the passage is:

The greatest safety risk for passengers traveling on commercial passenger airplanes is that of a midair collision.

With the remaining information as premises used to support the argument. How passengers feel about airlines have no bearing in the premises or the argument.
Join the discussion