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.

(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.

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

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

C. as malfunction will result in more accidents.
_________________

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!

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.

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.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.