Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions betwe

Question

Competition Mode Question

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. In the 10 years since the refuge was established, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds, and no passenger has been injured as a result of such a collision. The wildlife refuge therefore poses no safety risk.

Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

The pilot counters the conservationist by

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading

(B) questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Let’s consider the two arguments first:

Conservationist:
  In the past 10 years, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds. 
 In those 20 collisions, no passenger has been injured 
 Therefore, the conservationist concludes that “ the wildlife refuge...poses no safety risk .”

Pilot:
  17 of the 20 collisions occurred in the past 2 years. 
 The number of birds is rapidly increasing. 
 The number of bird and airplane collisions will continue to increase. 
 More collisions translates to a greater likelihood that at least one collision will result in passenger injuries.

Although the pilot does not dispute any of the facts given by the conservationist, he/she adds further context illustrating that the number of collisions is increasing. This means, according to the pilot, that while collisions have not resulted in injuries in the past,  they are likely to cause passenger injuries as more collisions occur in the future.
 
The question asks us to describe how the pilot counters the conservationist. With that in mind, let’s consider the answer choices.

The conservationist states that a mere 20 collisions have taken place over the course of 10 years. But the pilot notes that the conservationist “ neglect(s) to mention  that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years.” By failing to add crucial context, the conservationist has, according to the pilot, made airplane/bird collisions seem to be less frequent, and thus less problematic, than they really have been in the past two years. In other words, the conservationist’s depiction of the frequency of collisions between birds and airplanes seems to be misleading. So, let’s keep (A).

The pilot simply does not discuss the conservationist’s motives in reaching the conclusion that the wildlife refuge poses no safety risk. Eliminate (B).

At first glance, (C) seems plausible. The pilot does argue that the likelihood of a collision resulting in passenger injuries will increase over time. The problem is that (C) implies that dangerous situations,  in general , ALWAYS become more dangerous over time. But that’s not what the pilot is arguing.

The pilot believes that this particular dangerous situation is likely to become more dangerous. The pilot supports that by noting that the frequency of airplane/bird collisions has increased recently, and it is likely to continue to increase. But this is not the result of the passage of time. It’s the result of the rapidly increasing number of birds in the refuge. In other words, if there were fewer birds today than there were in the past, then we would be inclined to believe that the danger today is less than it was in the past. So, not ALL dangerous situations INEVITABLY become more dangerous  with the passage of time . Eliminate (C).

The conservationist’s argument is not based on a moral principle. The conservationist’s argument is based on the belief that, because the refuge has posed no safety risk in the past, it will continue to pose no safety risk in the future. Eliminate (D).

The pilot does not dispute the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist. In fact, the pilot seems to confirm the accuracy of the figure given by the conservationist that only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds over the past 10 years. The pilot simply adds a caveat that 17 of those 20 collisions took place in the past two years. Eliminate (E).

(A) is the best description of the pilot’s counter, and it is correct.

I hope that helps!

ArunSharma12 · Answer

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading
 The description of the fact is questioned by the pilot.

(B) questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion
 This is not discussed within the passage

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time
 Pilot mentions that as the number of birds increases there will be more possibility of accidents resulting in passenger injuries.

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based
 argument is based on the some facts which can not be questioned

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist
 figures are fine. conservationist missed to provide some figures relevant to the discussion but the figures presented in the passage are correct 
Ans: C

Krishh9119 · Answer

Conservationist:  10 years -> 20 planes damaged+ zero injuries >> wildlife refuge therefore poses no safety risk
 Pilot:   Last 2 years -> 17 of those 20 collisions + number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing >>As number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases,the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

Reasoning: 
1) The pilot agrees to the Conservationist's premise/facts.
2) The pilot does add a point to Conservationist's and gives a second thought about increasing refuge and its effects on passenger injuries.

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading
 'neglect' and 'misleading' are not same in meaning. neglect=fail to care for properly.

(B) questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion
 No, he does not question the motives. In fact, both are trying to predict the outcome of events.

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time
 Yes, this clearly explains us how the dangerous trend seen in the past 2 years could result in passenger injuries.

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based
 No, the pilot agrees with the facts.

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist
 No, the pilot agrees with the facts.

Our answer is C.

chaitralirr · Answer

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. In the 10 years since the refuge was established, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds, and no passenger has been injured as a result of such a collision. The wildlife refuge therefore poses no safety risk.

Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

Stimulus: conservationist state that the airplane is safe though 20 collisions have take place between the birds and plane no passenger was injured. The pilot states in 20 collision last 17 occurred in last 2 years and the number of birds are increasing which increases the likelihood of collision. 
 IMO C 
The pilot counters the conservationist by

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading

(B) questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist

sony1000 · Answer

Is it A or C?, anyone know why it is A rhe answer

tomcruiseh · Answer

GMATNinja  , please help here, both A and C seems to be very close.

raunakd11 · Answer

Hello guys!
 
Sticking to Option C, but the OA does not seem that satisfying.

Bunuel 
Kindly help us with the Official Explanation.

Thank you.

Regards.

abhinav261289 · Answer

Question mentions a description of the facts pointed out by Conservationist. While the Pilot does not deny the data mentioned in the fact, he does provide additional information/description and challenges the conclusion pointed out by the conservationist when the additional information is kept in light, thereby indicating that the conservationist's description is misleading. This is clear if we read the line  " Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing"  .

Now if we look at  Option A - "attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading"  , it is exactly how the Pilot is countering the conservationist's argument , as I have explained above .

I see that there is some confusion  "(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time"  . If we read it carefully, it indicates that Pilot is agreeing to the description provided by the conservationist. That's not the case however. It's clear with the line :  "You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 year...." . That's precisely why "C" cannot be the right choice.

Hope it helps!

deveshj21 · Answer

nightblade354 
I was confused between A and C, finally i went for A. Option A is very specific: the conservationist is playing with the figures, hence MISLEADING.
I eliminated option C, as it is a generalized statement. Can't find anymore reason to eliminate C.

Is my reasoning correct? If not, what would be a good reason for eliminating C?

dhruv2989 · Answer

The answer is A.

Option C only states the mechanics of the point raised in A.

Hope this helps.

nightblade354 · Answer

For (A), the counter is that the statistics were skewed, and hence misleading. So you are correct.

I eliminated (C) because it says "inevitably become more dangerous". Is this true? No. In order for this to work, the author would've needed to say "But, every situation like this becomes more dangerous over time, as statistics show".

tinbq · Answer

Hi experts,
Please help to explain why each choice is right or wrong. Thanks.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading -- Correct. Description surrounding the facts was misleading. And that is what the pilot highlighted.

(B) questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion -- Motives were not questioned in the passage. Incorrect.

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time -- Contender. But A is better. Eliminate. Also the pilot didn't make a general argument. He highlighted that situation has worsened in last 2 years.

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based -- No argument on moral principles. Eliminate.

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist -- The figures were not disputed. Incorrect.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

(A) attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the fact is misleading  Correct answer. The conservationist quotes data in support of his position. The pilot proves that a different cut of the data, different context, actually disproves the conservationist's conclusion. Hence the conservationist's description is misleading.

(B) questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion  The pilot does not question the motive of the conservationist. Eliminate.

(C) asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time  It is not the passage of time itself which disproves the conservationist's claim, but events occurring/developing with the passage of time. Eliminate.

(D) discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based  The pilot does not question the moral principle of the conservationist's claim. Eliminate.

(E) disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist  The pilot is not disputing the accuracy of figures, but asserting that looking at the same figures in a different context (2 years instead of 10 years) leads to a different conclusion. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions betwe

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions betwe

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards