I will go with C.

(A) It is always possible for mechanical devices to malfunction.
General comment can be true for anything so not relevant.

(B) Jet engines, although not fully tested when first put into use, have achieved exemplary performance and safety records.
This will strenthen Airlines argument rather than Pilots.

(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.
Strenthens pilots argument that new system will cause more problem rather than solving it.

(D) Many airline collisions are caused in part by the exhaustion of overworked pilots.
Irrelavant piece of information. Although it might be true.

(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.
Strenthen Airlines case instead of Pilots.

Looks simple C ..or did I fell in the trap?

thats what im worried about too !

I think C too, the others seem to either weaken or are irrelevant. What's the OA?

C

The assumption: the collision-avoidance system has more disadvantages than advantages

(C) ... will enable ... to avoid some crashes, ... will cause even more crashes.
_________________

C. as malfunction will result in more accidents.
_________________

C for me.

Pilots have objection towards not-fully-tested systems and anything that will show that the not-fully-tested systems are inefficient will strengthen pilots' objection.

(C) does that.

Hmm A just says device may (because of use of possible in the stem) malfunction (so the system may not work as expected) so at best neutralize the +ve effects of new systems, however C gives us a reason to believe that systems at present have problem. so C wins over!

This appears to be a OG question. I saw it on mba.com. Here is the official explanation:



Can a moderator tag this question?

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.
This option is talking about all the mechanical devices in general. But our argument is concerned specifically with the Newly developed collision-avoidance systems. Just on the basis of these collision-avoidance system not being fully tested, we cannot make such a broad conclusion/statement about all the mechanical devices.
Also, this option is talking about the possibility, which may or may not be true. But option C converts the possibility to a definite assurance. So, C is the best choice.
One more important point to note here is MECHANICAL DEVICES, again this option is very broad. Because it has not differentiated the fully tested AND not fully tested devices. The argument is concerned with the 'NOT FULLY TESTED NEWLY DEVELOPED COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS'.

(B) Jet engines, although not fully tested when first put into use, have achieved exemplary performance and safety records.
The argument is concerned with newly developed collision-avoidance systems and this option statement is talking about Jet Engines. We are not at all concerned with the exemplary performance and safety records of the Jet engines. So, No Impact.

(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.
Correct, goes in line with the pilots objection.
Choice C states that what the pilots think could happen is likely to happen. Thus, C is the best choice.
Pilots: Malfunctioning systems could mislead pilots, causing crashes.
Option C: The likely malfunctions of the not-fully-tested systems will cause even more crashes.
This option C is giving complete assurance that collisions/crashes will happen for sure because of these malfunctioning systems which are not fully tested.

(D) Many airline collisions are caused in part by the exhaustion of overworked pilots.
It is suggesting a different cause instead of supporting the pilots objection. It weakens. Exhaustion of overworked pilots is a different cause altogether. So, incorrect.
Malfunctioning systems causing crashes/collisions is the main concern of the pilots objection.

(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.
so what? At this stage of development, collision-avoidance systems are still not fully tested. So, Malfunctioning systems could mislead pilots, and can still cause crashes/collisions. So, incorrect.
Also, this option only suggests that systems have worked better in passenger planes than cargo planes, but still no assurance for the proof that these systems will not malfunction.
Comparison with cargo planes, is also irrelevant.

I would like to add to the explanations of option A.

Pilot's reasoning is based on causality [ A ( malfunctioning) causes B (crashes)]
Now, for any causality A causes B, any option that strengthens the cause or effect alone is usually wrong.

For example:
Sleepless nights cause headaches in the morning.
This claim is not strengthened by this option:
I had a sleepless night. ( it's just a statement)
OR by
I have a headache this morning.

But if I say,

last night I did not get sleep, and I feel my head is aching today.

This option stregnthens our argument now.

Hope this explanation helps. This is as generic as it gets. It's true for any causal relationship.

Regards,
Rishav

Quote:

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?

Our airline concludes that all these new collision safety systems need to be installed ASAP because it will lead to less crashes!

The pilots are arguing that they won’t follow through unless all the machinery is tested…(because who trusts machines that haven’t had a test run? Also, I would want data too. I’m not flying a plane with 100s of passengers with a faulty system). The pilots support their conclusion by stating that malfunctions are misleading (and I don’t blame them). We need an answer choice that proves that this is true.

(A) It is always possible for mechanical devices to malfunction.
Well, if it is always possible for devices to malfunction, then the point of the full test might not even be worth it….if malfunctions happen anyway. Let’s hold it though. Coming back to this (C) is better…this discusses mechanical devices too generally. We want the distinction between the FULLY-TESTED and the NON-FULLY TESTED. And I could see the airlines using this as a justification against the pilots.

(B) Jet engines, although not fully tested when first put into use, have achieved exemplary performance and safety records.
This would actually strengthen the airline’s argument.

(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.
This restates the pilot’s concern.

(D) Many airline collisions are caused in part by the exhaustion of overworked pilots.
This would strengthen the airline’s argument….they’re probably use this as a justification against the 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.
This is irrelevant. We don’t care about the distinction between the efficacy of the test on passenger v. cargo planes.
_________________

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.(Correct)

(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.

OFFICIAL GMAT EXPLANATION

Choice C states that what the pilots think could happen is likely to happen. Thus, C is the best answer.

Choice A is inappropriate because it says nothing about the malfunctions that most concern the pilots – those that might mislead. Nor does A distinguish tested from not-fully-tested systems. Choice B is inappropriate. The only outcome of using insufficiently tested equipment that might strengthen the pilots’ objection is an unfavorable one, but B reports on a favorable outcome. Choice D is inappropriate because it mentions a problem that needs to be addressed whether or not the collision-avoidance systems are installed immediately. Choice E is inappropriate because it provides no evidence that any malfunctions were of a sort to mislead pilots and cause crashes.

Without reading all the answer choices. C is a direct strengthener.

Posted from my mobile device