Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators

Very very good and easy question.
THE ANSWER IS E AND E ONLY.

Explaination :- Questions asks us what is the "pre-supposition. It means what ASSUMPTIONS were made while reaching the conclusion"

There are 2 techniques to find the Assumption
1) ASSUMPTION NEGATION :- First find the premise and conclusion of the argument. Then negate answer choices only by one. The answer choice which after negation makes the conclusion weak is the correct answer. THIS IS THE TECHNIQUE MOST PEOPLE USE TO FIND ASSUMPTION
2) ASSUMPTION ADDITION :- Assumption is a premise that is not written or expressed in the argument. But assumption is an important premise to reach the conclusion. In this type of questions a strong unstated assumption is always present in the option choices that when inserted in the argument make it complete. So in this technique you add one of the OPTION from answer choices as a Premise just before the Conclusion. The answer choice that makes the argument complete is correct.

NOW LETS GET TO THE BRASS TACKS (BRASS TACKS is an idiom that means "focus on the issue in hand" )
We will use ASSUMPTION ADDITION technique.
First we will have to quickly identify and isolate the PREMISES and CONCLUSION of the argument.
Premise 1) Don't blame pilot for accidents.
Premise 2) Investigate why error was made by analysing these areas :- airplane design (X), management (Y), and PILOT TRAINING PROGRAM (Z)
Premise 3) ----HERE WE WILL ADD THE ANSWER OPTIONS A,B,C,D,E --ONE BY ONE-----
Conclusion) Only after making changes in design, management and pilot's training we can ensure similar type of accidents does occur in future

SO add option E in place of PREMISE 3 and see how the argument becomes fool proof, cogent and strong.

Premise 1) Don't blame pilot for accidents.
Premise 2) Investigate why error was made by analysing these areas :- airplane design (X), management (Y), and PILOT TRAINING PROGRAM.
Premise 3) (E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained.
Conclusion) Only after making changes in X, Y and Pilot's training(Z) we can ensure that similar kind of accident does occur in future


Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs. For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident.
Which of the following is a presupposition of the argument above?
(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents.
(Reverse answer. Pilot training is the most important factor)
(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.
(Irrelevant to the issue)
(C) Stricter government regulation of airline companies will make air travel significantly safer.
(Out of scope)
(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
(There is a possibility that investigators have already contributed to the prevention of accidents by filtering out the possible reasons for the accident. Investigators may have given a detailed report to Airline management explaining the cause of the accidents but the managment decided not to implement the recommendation from the investigators because it will require large amount of investment and decline airline's profit margin. So we don't know whether investigators are or not contributing. No information in the argument to validate this option)
(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained.
(yup correct answer :- Don't blame pilots for accidents. you don't gave them proper training. An inexperienced pilot will keep causing accidents unless you train him properly.)

The passage already states that the accidents are because of pilot errors ( "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made" - this part implies that there was definitely a pilot error). Hence A is incorrect.

The argument is as follows:

Conclusion: ONLY analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs will ensure that an error is not repeated.

The word "Only" plays a vital role here, because it eliminates the possibility that there could be other ways by which repetition of errors can be avoided.

Thus the assumption is that there is no other way to avoid repetition of errors. If a pilot who makes an error learns from his mistake and does not make the error again, then this would be one other way of avoiding a repetition of error. Thus E must be assumption.

Please let me know if you still have doubt.

(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents. Negated would be some; hence, doesnt break the argument
(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents. If we negate this, it breaks the argument. As the argument relies on investigators ensuring the same type of error does not recur.
(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained Negated would be some; hence, doesnt break the argument

-- hope this helps.

OA for these two questions are conflicting, can someone please explain
https://gmatclub.com/forum/top150-cr-in ... 05980.html

GMATNinja Bunuel

Spiddy, the last sentence in the "linked" question says that it is the insurance companies who will be punishing, issuing, guidelines, etc. Here, we don't have that information. Its about prevention of similar accidents.

answer in 1:30 chose D

As a rule of thumb I always am suspect of words such as "most" "sometimes" etc because may not provide an argument strong enough to become a solid assumption...

sayantanc2k

OA is D! I understand that similar question has different OA. What's your take on this paradox?

Then how come D is the OE?

also, mirror like question from Manhattan prep: https://gmatclub.com/forum/top150-cr-in ... 05980.html

What I gathered from this question and Manhattan question (https://gmatclub.com/forum/top150-cr-in ... 05980.html, don't know which is original):

Simple change of one word changes the conclusion and hence the answer. In presupposition/assumption you have to always identify the conclusion to help in POE. Here, second line isn't the conclusion. But rather the first line is the conclusion:



With this conclusion let's analyze why negation of E isn't correct:



Even if pilots don't repeat their mistakes, the conclusion isn't breaking. It doesn't change the fact that investigators should still find out the errors made by other pilots(pilots who never made errors and making their first error) or errors related to airplane stuff. They still have to investigate that. This option doesn't change anything.

Negation of D on the other hand:



If they shouldn't contribute to the prevention of accidents, then whole conclusion of them finding out errors doesn't stand a chance. Premise is "we need to find out errors to contribute to the prevention of accidents" but if investigators themselves aren't interested in that then whole argument falls. This is SUFFICIENT and hence this is the correct answer.

Now coming to the Manhattan Question:

Subtle change: (from for only then to only then)



And this change makes this above line our conclusion. And hence in the similar options given to us we have to choose E here instead of D.

how will "investigators" as individuals contribute to the future accidents? shouldn't it be that their investigation will contribute to it? Also, even if that were correct what is it to say that the pilot won't make an error again despite new regulations?

IMO the answer should be E

 

­Here's how I analyzed this.
1. Do not blame the pilot error for an airline accident.
2. Let the investigators find out.
3. Because investigation will help bring changes ensuring that "the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident."

Are we coming up with any conclusions in the given statement? No. We state a reason the investigation will help us. This means we presuppose that future accidents are prevented if the investigation is done. This is exactly what option (D) says. Therefore, option (D) is correct.