A system that combines radar and infrared can be installed in cargo ships and passenger liners to provide a ship’s crew with a warning if another vessel is in the shipping lane directly ahead. The early warning allows a ship’s captain to attempt an abrupt course change to avert a possible collision. Even though cargo ships and passenger liners need a considerable distance to maneuver and that most warnings are false, such an early warning system undoubtedly better protects cargo and passengers. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. The system can detect not only the physical presence of a ship by radar but it can also detect a ship's heat signature by infrared.
B. A maritime safety commission report determined that over 82% of the system’s warnings were false.
C. Ship collisions in the major oceanic shipping lanes are extremely rare.
D. The risk of a cargo ship or passenger liner being involved in a collision is substantially greater at port than at sea.
E. Abrupt course changes do not involve risk to a ship’s cargo or passengers.
Official ExplanationType: Strengthen
Boil It Down: System warns captain -> Better protection
Missing Information: There are not any significant downsides to the system
Goal:
Find the option that reinforces the notion that cargo and passengers will be better protectedⒶ This option just describes some of the details of HOW the technology works, but better knowing how it works in no way helps us know that it actually works, or will ultimately better protect cargo and passengers. By gaining a brief run-through of the systems involved, we are in no way better able to say that the system is more likely to achieve its goal—protection.
Ⓑ No effect. A high volume of false alarms wouldn’t help reinforce the positive outcome of the system, in fact, if anything, this option appears to even weaken the notion of how effective the system is if false alarms make up that big a fraction of the system’s warnings.
Ⓒ We’re not concerned with how rare or how common collisions are. Even if they’re rare, preventing them could be extremely valuable in protecting cargo, passengers, and ships. The notion of how rare such collisions are in no way reinforces the argument.
Ⓓ This option is utterly useless. It stresses the severity of locations outside of the scope of where we need it (avoiding collisions in sea lanes). This is what we call an Out Of Focus option. It just has no obvious impact on the argument concerning collision warning in sea lanes.
Ⓔ Yes! Although this option doesn’t DEFINITIVELY prove that the system will better protect cargo or passengers, it rules out a factor that could completely undercut the value of the system. Consider the alternative: what if the course changes did involve risk to a ship’s cargo or passengers? Then the system, especially if it had a significant number of false alarms, could, surprisingly, end up harming a ship’s cargo or passengers. By ruling out that risk, we reinforce the prediction that a ship’s cargo or passengers will be better protected.Bigger GMAT Picture: Eliminating a likely alternative factor can reinforce the predicted outcome.
_________________
EMPOWERgmat
Total GMAT Content & Tactical Training | 120 Point Guarantee | All 6 Official GMAT Tests
empowergmat.com