rakeshd347 wrote:When an airplane is taken out of service for maintenance, it is often repainted as well, and during the repainting no other maintenance work can be done on the plane. In order to reduce maintenance time, airline officials are considering using a new nontoxic plastic film instead of paint. The film takes just as long to apply as paint does, but many other maintenance tasks can be carried out at the same time. Which of the following, if true, is further evidence that using the film will help the airline officials achieve their goal?

A. Unlike paint, the film gives a milky tone to certain colors.
Out of scope: Information about the color is irrelevant

B. At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can.
Film can be removed easily so all the future maintenance tasks would be carried out quickly along with the usual benefits of the film (it allows us to carry out maintenance tasks side by side). Strong Contender.

C. The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training.
Out of scope: Skills are irrelevant, In fact if it takes special skills to install the NPF it could imply that the end result would be a lot slower, considering that it is hard to find skilled labor! So kind of weakens.

D. The metal exteriors of airplanes have to be protected from high temperatures and caustic chemicals such as exhaust gases.
Out of scope: Exteriors of the plane have no bearing on the end result of faster maintenance time.

E. Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet, the film remains securely attached.
Out of scope: Benefit of the film but doesn't answer the issue related to maintenance time.