Critical Reasoning

This is one question from a pair of LSAT questions from October 1993, Critical Reasoning Section 1, questions # 9 and # 10.

Question #10 (based on the same stimulus) is discussed at the following link: https://www.beatthegmat.com/reduce-fatal ... 68915.html


"9. The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. Many of the fatalities that occur in such collisions are caused not by the collision itself, but by an inherent flaw in the cabin design of most aircraft, in which seats, by restricting access to emergency exits, impede escape. Therefore, to reduce the total number of fatalities that result annually from such collisions, the airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the proposal?

(A) The number of deaths that occurred in theater fires because theater patrons could not escape was greatly reduced when theaters were required to have aisles leading to each exit.

(B) Removing the seats that block emergency exits on aircraft will require a costly refitting of aircraft cabins.

(C) In the event of fire, public buildings equipped with smoke detectors have fewer fatalities than do public buildings not so equipped.

(D) In the event of collision, passengers on planes with a smaller passenger capacity generally suffer more serious injury than do passengers on planes with a larger passenger capacity.

(E) The safety belts attached to aircraft seats function to protect passengers from the full force of impact in the event of a collision."


Official Answer later today, after some discussion.

Hi David

IMO A

(A) The number of deaths that occurred in theater fires because theater patrons could not escape was greatly reduced when theaters were required to have aisles leading to each exit. Correct

(B) Removing the seats that block emergency exits on aircraft will require a costly refitting of aircraft cabins. We are not concerned with the $'s here

(C) In the event of fire, public buildings equipped with smoke detectors have fewer fatalities than do public buildings not so equipped. Tends to attract but out of scope

(D) In the event of collision, passengers on planes with a smaller passenger capacity generally suffer more serious injury than do passengers on planes with a larger passenger capacity. We are not concerned with reduction of relative injuries in small and large planes.

(E) The safety belts attached to aircraft seats function to protect passengers from the full force of impact in the event of a collision." Out of scope

+1 for a

I dont agree with A .The author implies an analogy between providing aisles leading to exits in case of theatres so as to decrease the nmbr of fatalities and removing seats that block the exits in case of aircraft .
But after going thru the rest ,went with A .

I will go with A

Conclusion = reducing seat blocking emergency access => reduce no of fatalities .

Only option that suports this proposal is choice A.

Although it is a analogy i agree , but is the best among available options.[/spoiler]

David@VeritasPrep wrote:This is one question from a pair of LSAT questions from October 1993, Critical Reasoning Section 1, questions # 9 and # 10.

Question #10 (based on the same stimulus) is discussed at the following link: https://www.beatthegmat.com/reduce-fatal ... 68915.html


"9. The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. Many of the fatalities that occur in such collisions are caused not by the collision itself, but by an inherent flaw in the cabin design of most aircraft, in which seats, by restricting access to emergency exits, impede escape. Therefore, to reduce the total number of fatalities that result annually from such collisions, the airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the proposal?

(A) The number of deaths that occurred in theater fires because theater patrons could not escape was greatly reduced when theaters were required to have aisles leading to each exit.

(B) Removing the seats that block emergency exits on aircraft will require a costly refitting of aircraft cabins.

(C) In the event of fire, public buildings equipped with smoke detectors have fewer fatalities than do public buildings not so equipped.

(D) In the event of collision, passengers on planes with a smaller passenger capacity generally suffer more serious injury than do passengers on planes with a larger passenger capacity.

(E) The safety belts attached to aircraft seats function to protect passengers from the full force of impact in the event of a collision."


Official Answer later today, after some discussion.

A makes sense here

OA is A.

I agree with you guys that the analogy here is a bit of a stretch. I also was not impressed with the various answer choices and arrived at A through process of elimination and I found that A was the official answer. I will go with bblast's posting on this one, basically the other four choices are out of scope.

I posted this question because I was responding to the other question based on the same stimulus. That other question # 10 is better than this one. And yet, on test day you may find a question like this and have to settle for the best of a group of poor answers.

nice work!

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is A.

I agree with you guys that the analogy here is a bit of a stretch. I also was not impressed with the various answer choices and arrived at A through process of elimination and I found that A was the official answer. I will go with bblast's posting on this one, basically the other four choices are out of scope.

I posted this question because I was responding to the other question based on the same stimulus. That other question # 10 is better than this one. And yet, on test day you may find a question like this and have to settle for the best of a group of poor answers.

nice work!

Hi Dave, is that a real GMAT Q? coz I haven't seen an analogy to strengthen the argument.

M09 -

I agree, with what you say about the sort of distant analogy as the correct answer being a little different.

This is not a real GMAT question and not even one trying to be a GMAT question. It is an LSAT question. As I said at the very top (easy to skip over!) this is one of a pair of LSAT questions based on one stimulus. I was replying to the other question from this stimulus and I thought that if people had done that one they might as well try this one too.

After I saw the replies I was thinking that this is not such as strong question - it is rather old, from 1993 - and a little bit weak.

However, it fits my mantra for 2011, "the GMAT is getting tougher and more varied, so we have to do the same." I do not want any of my students, or anyone that I can help on BTG, walking into the GMAT thinking that only what is in the Official Guide is fair game for the test. People have been seeing some interesting questions lately on both Quant and Verbal.

So let's do some crazy questions and some tough questions and be ready for anything and if all we get are some strengthen and weaken that look like the OG questions we can breathe a sigh of relief!

David@VeritasPrep wrote:M09 -

I agree, with what you say about the sort of distant analogy as the correct answer being a little different.

This is not a real GMAT question and not even one trying to be a GMAT question. It is an LSAT question. As I said at the very top (easy to skip over!) this is one of a pair of LSAT questions based on one stimulus. I was replying to the other question from this stimulus and I thought that if people had done that one they might as well try this one too.

After I saw the replies I was thinking that this is not such as strong question - it is rather old, from 1993 - and a little bit weak.

However, it fits my mantra for 2011, "the GMAT is getting tougher and more varied, so we have to do the same." I do not want any of my students, or anyone that I can help on BTG, walking into the GMAT thinking that only what is in the Official Guide is fair game for the test. People have been seeing some interesting questions lately on both Quant and Verbal.

So let's do some crazy questions and some tough questions and be ready for anything and if all we get are some strengthen and weaken that look like the OG questions we can breathe a sigh of relief!

Yup that's also true. Thanks for the Q

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is A.

I agree with you guys that the analogy here is a bit of a stretch. I also was not impressed with the various answer choices and arrived at A through process of elimination and I found that A was the official answer. I will go with bblast's posting on this one, basically the other four choices are out of scope.

I posted this question because I was responding to the other question based on the same stimulus. That other question # 10 is better than this one. And yet, on test day you may find a question like this and have to settle for the best of a group of poor answers.

nice work!

Hi David,
D - can i say that D requires an assumption that smaller planes are more likely to have their emergency exits blocked and hence are more vulnerable to fatalities on accidents as compared to larger planes. This shows that blocking of the emergency exits is in fact contributing to fatalities on collision and thus supports the proposal.

But this will be an assumption that is not warranted and hence D is wrong because it requires additional assumption not because it is out of scope.

Cumulonimbus (aka thunderstorm)

You are correct! I try not to use "out of scope" on strengthen or weaken questions. This is because even the correct answer must supply "new" information.

You have stated it exactly, choice D requires too many steps, too big of an assumption. You would have to assume that the reason smaller planes have more serious injuries has to do with the exits and not simply the size of the plane (you know the way that you are safer in a big car in an accident as compared to a mini cooper).

The answer that requires this big of an assumption is not correct. Nice job.