When an airplane is taken out of service for maintenance,

Why not E?

The primary purpose of any paint/plastic used for colouring the plane is to stay on while the plane is in flight. It is established in the stem that the plastic will save time. But what good is this "saving time", if the plastic will come off during flight? Plastic can only be used if it also saves time while doing all of the core functions that paint does. The stem doesnt elaborate on this fact - whether the plastic does all of the functions for the plane that paint colour does. I think we need to fill that logic gap and hence E is superior to B.

Note I have no doubt about B's strengthening ability. I just think E strengthens the argument more than B.

One reason is given about why it is better to use the film than paint. Now you need a choice that further proves same. But keep in mind that a choice can only support if it uses the right parameter. In argument Time is the most important parameter. Infact Time is the reason for using film as an alternative of paint.

A. Unlike paint, the film gives a milky tone to certain colors.
Is this why we looked out for alternative to paint?? Of course not. Irrelevant.

B. At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can.
If film is so good that it is a time saver even after its use than it is better to use. So this choice support using the Time as parameter. Stays in scope and hits the right note. Good choice. Correct choice.

C. The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training.
Well that’s not an issue. paint is also applied by painters.

D. The metal exteriors of airplanes have to be protected from high temperatures and caustic chemicals such as exhaust gases.
So no information on film and paint. OFS.

E. Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet, the film remains securely attached.
So this one tells how good it is to use film. But then this choice is away from WHY officials wanted to use film. They wanted to save time. This security is not the concern in argument.

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?

Boil it down - Replacing paint by plastic film will reduce maintenance time

A. Unlike paint, the film gives a milky tone to certain colors. - Irrelevant

B. At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can. - Correct

C. The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training. - Irrelevant

D. The metal exteriors of airplanes have to be protected from high temperatures and caustic chemicals such as exhaust gases. - Irrelevant

E. Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet, the film remains securely attached. - ISWAT - we don't even know whether the plane does travel at speeds considerably higher than normal speed . Also , paint might still be secured at higher than normal speeds.

Answer B

Ok. I'm really struggling with this question.

As per the argument airline officials want to coat a given aircraft at the same time while carrying out other maintenance activates on the aircraft to reduce downtime ( I assume this is during the service life of the aircraft)

However option B talks about stripping the aircraft after its entire useful life (who care?) i believe this option is completely irrelevant to the argument. Experts please help.

Hi VeritasPrepBrandon
I agree with the explanation, however, I have a doubt- what if there's no need to scrape off the old paint because as per premise we don't have any info about this.
Also, we don't know whether during the removal process other maintenance tasks can be carried out in parallel.

I also think along the same lines, however, after giving more thought to E.
E can be rejected on grounds that
1. We don't have a clear distinction b/w normal and high speed, and ambiguous answer choices are usually incorrect.
2. Does a passenger jet even travel at high speed? However, we still don't have clarity of what speed can be considered high speed.

I did not consider removing the film is required, so I ignored it.

We want to support the airline officials' goal. The goal is to reduce maintenance time by using the film.

#1 is only about the tone of the color and not time. Wrong.
#2 is about time (via speed).
#3 is not helpful. Wrong.
#4 does not have anything to do with maintenance time. Wrong.
#5 is totally irrelevant. These are speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet. This doesn't affect the maintenance time since the film does not fall off. Any attempt to make #5 work will have to import some assumptions.

#2 is the answer by elimination.

I kinda had the same logic behind eliminating B - reducing maintenance time is essential DURING the useful life of the plane. At the end of the useful life why does it matter. GMATNinja can you shed some light on this pls

Understanding the argument -
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. - Fact
In order to reduce maintenance time, airline officials are considering using a new nontoxic plastic film instead of paint. - Conclusion.
Goal - To reduce the maintenance time.
Plan - Use 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. - Fact. Supporting premise.

Option Elimination - Strengthen the plan to help achieve the goal, which is "To reduce maintenance time."

(A) Unlike paint, the film gives a milky tone to certain colors. - Out of scope.

(B) At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can. - If the film can be removed more quickly then its a dual advantage to the "reduce the maintenance time." ok.

(C) The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training. - Weakener.

(D) The metal exteriors of airplanes have to be protected from high temperatures and caustic chemicals such as exhaust gases. - Out of scope.

(E) Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet, the film remains securely attached. - It's a good advantage for the film, but our scope here is to ensure that the plan will meet the goal, which is "To reduce maintenance time." Does this help reduce the maintenance time? No. Out of scope.