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

Redeem

CR: Arg Weakening Problem

Expert replies
by nishant1309 » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:22 am
Whenever a major airplane accident occurs, there is a dramatic increase in the number of airplane mishaps reported, a phenomenon that may last for as long as a few months after the accident. Airline officials assert that the publicity given the gruesomeness of major airplane accidents focuses media attention on the airline industry and the increase in the number of reported accidents is caused by an increase in the number of news sources covering airline accident, not by an increase in the number of accidents.
Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the assertions of the airline officials?

(A) The publicity surrounding airline accidents is largely limited to the country in which the crash occurred.
(B) Airline accidents tend to occur far more often during certain peak travel months.
(C) News organizations do not have any guidelines to help them decide how severe or how close an accident must be for it to receive coverage.
(D) Airplane accidents receive coverage by news sources only when the news sources find it advantageous to do so.
(E) Studies by government regulations show that the number of airplane flight miles remains relatively constant from month to month.

OA after some reasonable explanations.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by hoji » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:52 pm
IMHO:B


cause and effect:

airline officials=> more media coverage -> more reported accidents

B shows an alternative cause for the effect: actually during certain period, airplane crashes occur more frequently.
I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of a man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.
Henry David Thoreau.

Sleep GMAT, eat GMAT, beat GMAT!
______________________________
Quant ----> 51
Verbal----> 44+
GMAT ----> 750+
Join the discussion

by mehrasa » Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:28 pm
IMO: B
Join the discussion

by CappyAA » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:17 am
This is definitely a tough question with confusing answers but I'm going to also have to say B. We are looking for something that weakens the claim that more media coverage leads to more reported accidents. We can weaken the claim by either finding something that directly contradicts this claim or by finding an alternative explanation. The tougher weaken questions very often have these alternative explanations.

B gives us the explanation that accidents tend to happen during peak travel months. Even if you assume the rate of mishaps remains the same, the number will still inevitably be higher during these peak travel months. That's another explanation instead of the increased number due to the media.
Taking the GMAT Again...PhD this time!

October 2008 Score: GMAT - 750 (50 Q, 41 V) :D

Manhattan GMAT 1 - 11/20/11 - 750 (50 Q, 42 V)
Manhattan GMAT 2 - 12/3/11 - 780 (51 Q, 45 V)
Join the discussion

by boltu_gmat » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:35 am
B ..
Join the discussion

by nishant1309 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:19 am
Please explain what negates option C? It can be inferred that new sources cover the the stories related to accident irrespective of the nature of the accident i.e. sever or near miss.That means actually accidents have increased.
Join the discussion

by mankey » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:24 am
To me it looks, B. Please provide OA.

Thanks
Mankey
Join the discussion

by Proleefeek111 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:48 am
nishant1309 wrote:Please explain what negates option C? It can be inferred that new sources cover the the stories related to accident irrespective of the nature of the accident i.e. sever or near miss.That means actually accidents have increased.
Hi Nishant,

In opt C it says there are no guidelines to report incidents which could mean that severe issues may go unreported and/or trivial issues could be flooding the nespapers. So we cannot be certain that not having any pre-defined guidelines equates to increased coverage of aeroplane accidents, and thus increased incidents as well.
Join the discussion

by GmatKiss » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:06 am
A is close, B the winner!
Join the discussion

by nishant1309 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:59 am
@ Proleefeek111: Actually i comprehended it other way round...since there is no guideline>>new is reported irrespective of severity i.e. each and every accident bigger/smaller or a near miss is reported >> accidents have actually increased.
Proleefeek111 wrote:
nishant1309 wrote:Please explain what negates option C? It can be inferred that new sources cover the the stories related to accident irrespective of the nature of the accident i.e. sever or near miss.That means actually accidents have increased.
Hi Nishant,

In opt C it says there are no guidelines to report incidents which could mean that severe issues may go unreported and/or trivial issues could be flooding the nespapers. So we cannot be certain that not having any pre-defined guidelines equates to increased coverage of aeroplane accidents, and thus increased incidents as well.
Join the discussion

by nishant1309 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:00 am
Thanks for your explanations folks!

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]
Join the discussion