Airline: Newly developed collision-avoidance systems, although not fully tested to discover potential
malfunctions, must be installed immediately in passenger planes. Their mechanical warnings enable pilots to
avoid crashes.
Pilots: Pilots will not fly in planes with collision-avoidance systems that are not fully tested. Malfunctioning systems could mislead pilots, causing crashes.
The pilots' objection is most strengthened if which of the following is true?
(A) It is always possible for mechanical devices to malfunction.
(B) Jet engines, although not fully tested when first put into use, have achieved exemplary performance and
safety records.
(C) Although collision-avoidance systems will enable pilots to avoid some crashes, the likely malfunctions of
the not-fully-tested systems will cause even more crashes.
(D) Many airline collisions are caused in part by the exhaustion of overworked pilots.
(E) Collision-avoidance systems, at this stage of development, appear to have worked better in passenger
planes than in cargo planes during experimental flights made over a six-month period.
I stuck between A and C. Although C sounds more reasonable and close to what pilot is pointing to, if A were not true the pilot's argument will be weakened.
How to eliminate incorrect options in such cases?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Strengthen CR
This topic has expert replies
-
prachi18oct
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:33 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
Put yourself in the position of the airline. You're trying to make a decision about whether it's a good idea to install this new technology. Which piece of information helps you make that decision? 'A' is telling you something that you already know! There is no complex technology -nor will there ever be - that never malfunctions. One that works 99.999% of the time might be a good investment, and one that works 30% of the time will be a lousy investment. Both sometimes malfunction. We're trying to determine whether we wish to use this one particular system, and in order to do so, we need to project whether the new technology provides a net benefit. How many crashes will the new system allow pilots to avoid vs. how many crashes will the new system cause? This is what C gives us. If the system is causing more crashes than it's preventing, it's not something we want any part of.Airline: Newly developed collision-avoidance systems, although not fully tested to discover potential
malfunctions, must be installed immediately in passenger planes. Their mechanical warnings enable pilots to
avoid crashes.
Pilots: Pilots will not fly in planes with collision-avoidance systems that are not fully tested. Malfunctioning systems could mislead pilots, causing crashes.
The pilots' objection is most strengthened if which of the following is true?
(A) It is always possible for mechanical devices to malfunction.
(B) Jet engines, although not fully tested when first put into use, have achieved exemplary performance and
safety records.
(C) Although collision-avoidance systems will enable pilots to avoid some crashes, the likely malfunctions of
the not-fully-tested systems will cause even more crashes.
(D) Many airline collisions are caused in part by the exhaustion of overworked pilots.
(E) Collision-avoidance systems, at this stage of development, appear to have worked better in passenger
planes than in cargo planes during experimental flights made over a six-month period.
I stuck between A and C. Although C sounds more reasonable and close to what pilot is pointing to, if A were not true the pilot's argument will be weakened.
How to eliminate incorrect options in such cases?
(I find that, in general, putting yourself in the shoes of whoever is involved in a CR argument can help clarify what's most important when evaluating that argument.)
-
bubbliiiiiiii
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
- Location: Hyderabad, India
- Thanked: 49 times
- Followed by:12 members
- GMAT Score:700
I eliminated A because, its states that collision-avoidance systems, a mechanical device, will even fail after being fully tested. However, C talks about likelihood of crashes based on usage of fully tested and partially tested collision-avoidance system.I stuck between A and C. Although C sounds more reasonable and close to what pilot is pointing to, if A were not true the pilot's argument will be weakened.
How to eliminate incorrect options in such cases?
Regards,
Pranay
Pranay
-
nikhilgmat31
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 8:25 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
-
DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
The pilot's argument is that crash-avoidance systems should not be implemented until they're fully tested. Essentially, in the argument between using old fully-tested systems and newer untested systems, the pilots prefer the former. The question of whether crashes are caused by exhausted pilots sheds no light on the importance of having fully-tested systems. In other words, the key question is whether a malfunctioning new system is likely to cause more crashes than it prevents, not whether pilot exhaustion is the culprit.zaidq1 wrote:why is option d wrong ?
