|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 591
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is [#permalink]
01 Jun 2005, 16:40
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. Many of the fatalities that occur in such collisions are caused not by the collision itself, but by an inherent flaw in the cabin design of most aircraft, in which seats, by restricting access to emergency exits, impede escape. Therefore, to reduce the total number of fatalities that result annually from such collisions, the airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.
10. Which one of the following proposals, if implemented together with the proposal made in the passage, would improve the prospects for achieving the stated objective of reducing fatalities?
(A) The airlines should be required, when buying new planes, to buy only planes with unrestricted access to emergency exits.
(B) The airlines should not be permitted to increase further the number of flights in order to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
(C) Airport authorities should be required to streamline their passenger check-in procedures to accommodate the increased number of passengers served by the airlines.
(D) Airport authorities should be required to refine security precautions by making them less conspicuous without making them less effective.
(E) The airlines should not be allowed to increase the ticket price for each passenger to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 897
Location: Hyderabad
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
B is the best ( addresses the first reason for fatalities)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 720
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
B.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 0
|
(A) The airlines should be required, when buying new planes, to buy only planes with unrestricted access to emergency exits.
(B) The airlines should not be permitted to increase further the number of flights in order to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
(C) Airport authorities should be required to streamline their passenger check-in procedures to accommodate the increased number of passengers served by the airlines.
- out of scope
(D) Airport authorities should be required to refine security precautions by making them less conspicuous without making them less effective.
- out of scope
(E) The airlines should not be allowed to increase the ticket price for each passenger to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
- not important
Between A and B, I'll go with B. Since one of the concerns was the increase in the number of flights, then airlines should be prevented from increasing that number (and thus increasing traffic) to offset the reduction in seats.
A is not so good as airlines need not buy aircrafts, and yet increase the number of flights by using the current planes they possess.
B it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 553
Location: Canuckland
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 648
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
(B) too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 335
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
B
GA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 379
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
gandy_achar wrote: B
GA
Agree with A.
If increasing the no. of flights is allowed , then the increased traffic and hence the no. of possible collisions would increase, which defeats the entire purpose of removing sets next to emergency exits.
HMTG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 0
|
HowManyToGo wrote: gandy_achar wrote: B
GA Agree with A. If increasing the no. of flights is allowed , then the increased traffic and hence the no. of possible collisions would increase, which defeats the entire purpose of removing sets next to emergency exits. HMTG.
In this question you're asked to strengthen the proposal made in the passage. A does not do anything to strenthen it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 591
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
The OA is B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 379
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
ywilfred wrote: HowManyToGo wrote: gandy_achar wrote: B
GA Agree with A. If increasing the no. of flights is allowed , then the increased traffic and hence the no. of possible collisions would increase, which defeats the entire purpose of removing sets next to emergency exits. HMTG. In this question you're asked to strengthen the proposal made in the passage. A does not do anything to strenthen it.
Typo  what I had meant was "ageed with B" ,my explanation also uses B, thanks for pointing it out ywilfred.
HMTG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
yup, B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 141
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
B...what else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|