GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Aug 2019, 05:12

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1339
Location: Viet Nam
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 06:14
2
12
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:12) correct 53% (02:27) wrong based on 571 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it. In order to maximize the number of seats on each plane, most airlines adhere strictly to this standard, putting all seats 29 inches apart. New aviation safety research, however, suggests that seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart in order to meet emergency evacuation standards. In light of this research, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats. This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.

C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.

D. The reduced number of passengers will not allow the airlines to save enough money in fuel costs to make up for the decreased ticket sales.

E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 70
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 09:25
B it is....Negate B then the conclusion
Quote:
airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.
will fall apart.
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 135
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
WE: Other (Computer Software)
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 09:39
1
+D.

Conclusion is airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

It was a close call between B and D.

Why B is not the answer?

Even If seats could be adjusted,it is mandated that the no. of seats has to decrease so as to support the new 32 inch spacing between each seat.

On negating D we have, If the reduced no. of customer allow the airline to save money then there would be no loss and hence destroying the conclusion.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When nothing seem to help, I would go and look at a Stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred time without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it would split in two.
And I knew it was not that blow that did it, But all that had gone Before
.
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2015
Posts: 3
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 12:46
1
E in my opinion.

If operating costs are reduced due to lesser seats,revenue may remain same as before and not decrease.
Director
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 612
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 12:52
1
I will bet on B..we are talking about revenue and not of profit or savings ...
D basically point to profit margin

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 01 Jun 2016
Posts: 27
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 16:37
2
1
broall wrote:
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it. In order to maximize the number of seats on each plane, most airlines adhere strictly to this standard, putting all seats 29 inches apart. New aviation safety research, however, suggests that seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart in order to meet emergency evacuation standards. In light of this research, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats. This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.
Passenger's will is not our concern

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.
Looks good

C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.
Stimuli says MOST. kill this one

D. The reduced number of passengers will not allow the airlines to save enough money in fuel costs to make up for the decreased ticket sales.
We want to increase revenue not profit. Kill this one too

E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new
law.

Current Student
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 194
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.4
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Oct 2017, 17:55
1
B- pretty straightforward IMO. The conclusion is this: This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

The conclusion doesn't stand without B. If it were possible to offset the lost seats by reducing the width of the seats, airlines wouldn't have fewer seats. D, on the other hand, addresses a potential outcome for the airline, which isn't relevant to the conclusion here.

----

Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it. In order to maximize the number of seats on each plane, most airlines adhere strictly to this standard, putting all seats 29 inches apart. New aviation safety research, however, suggests that seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart in order to meet emergency evacuation standards. In light of this research, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats. This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.

C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.

D. The reduced number of passengers will not allow the airlines to save enough money in fuel costs to make up for the decreased ticket sales.

E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2017
Posts: 2
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 11:30
1

Why? Option B is in terms of width of the seat, but we are measuring the distance from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it.
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Nov 2017, 08:46
achilles229 I totally agree with you. The distance from back of one seat to the back of another seat will remain the same even if you reduce the width of the seat. I don't agree with the OA myself.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 57193
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 May 2018, 07:52
broall wrote:
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it. In order to maximize the number of seats on each plane, most airlines adhere strictly to this standard, putting all seats 29 inches apart. New aviation safety research, however, suggests that seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart in order to meet emergency evacuation standards. In light of this research, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats. This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.

C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.

D. The reduced number of passengers will not allow the airlines to save enough money in fuel costs to make up for the decreased ticket sales.

E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Like many assumption problems, this problem can be solved using the Assumption Negation Technique: when you take the opposite of the correct answer, it will directly weaken the conclusion. Here if you negate correct answer B, you will have:

It is possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.

If that were true, then the airlines would not have to reduce the number of seats on each flight, and then would not lose revenue (or have to charge more). The argument is then invalid. So because the opposite of B directly invalidates the argument, this shows how critical choice B is as an assumption in the argument. B is correct.

Where some incorrect answers can be tricky here is if you do not precisely recognize the conclusion, which is that the airlines would either lose revenue or have to charge more for tickets. Choices D and E each deal with cost; they propose ways for the airlines to lower costs to compensate for the lost revenue. But the argument isn't worried about net profit, just revenue. So cost-saving items are not relevant.

With choice A, note that the argument allows for either losing revenue or charging more. So whether passengers would be willing to pay more is irrelevant. To prove that, again use the Assumption Negation Technique: if the opposite is true, that passengers would be willing to spend more for those more-comfortable seats, the argument still holds: it's just that it's more likely that one part of the argument (the airlines will charge more) is true than it is that the other (they'll lose revenue) will.
_________________
Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Posts: 998
Location: India
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jul 2019, 00:30
broall wrote:
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it. In order to maximize the number of seats on each plane, most airlines adhere strictly to this standard, putting all seats 29 inches apart. New aviation safety research, however, suggests that seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart in order to meet emergency evacuation standards. In light of this research, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats. This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.
But stills airlines may have to charge more for each ticket or lose revenues on each flight. Incorrect

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.
If is is possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance then the conclusion of the argument becomes invalid. Negation test. Correct.

C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.
Even if some airlines are already compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance, conclusion is remains valid for other airlines. Incorrect

D. The reduced number of passengers will not allow the airlines to save enough money in fuel costs to make up for the decreased ticket sales.
But revenues on each flight may still be affected. Incorrect

E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.

But revenues on each flight may still be affected. Incorrect
_________________
"Success is not final; failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts."

Please provide kudos if you like my post. Kudos encourage active discussions.

My GMAT Resources: -

Efficient Learning

Tele: +91-11-40396815
Mobile : +91-9910661622
E-mail : kinshook.chaturvedi@gmail.com
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 10
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Aug 2019, 22:00
Bunuel wrote:
broall wrote:
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it. In order to maximize the number of seats on each plane, most airlines adhere strictly to this standard, putting all seats 29 inches apart. New aviation safety research, however, suggests that seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart in order to meet emergency evacuation standards. In light of this research, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats. This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.

C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.

D. The reduced number of passengers will not allow the airlines to save enough money in fuel costs to make up for the decreased ticket sales.

E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Like many assumption problems, this problem can be solved using the Assumption Negation Technique: when you take the opposite of the correct answer, it will directly weaken the conclusion. Here if you negate correct answer B, you will have:

It is possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.

If that were true, then the airlines would not have to reduce the number of seats on each flight, and then would not lose revenue (or have to charge more). The argument is then invalid. So because the opposite of B directly invalidates the argument, this shows how critical choice B is as an assumption in the argument. B is correct.

Where some incorrect answers can be tricky here is if you do not precisely recognize the conclusion, which is that the airlines would either lose revenue or have to charge more for tickets. Choices D and E each deal with cost; they propose ways for the airlines to lower costs to compensate for the lost revenue. But the argument isn't worried about net profit, just revenue. So cost-saving items are not relevant.

With choice A, note that the argument allows for either losing revenue or charging more. So whether passengers would be willing to pay more is irrelevant. To prove that, again use the Assumption Negation Technique: if the opposite is true, that passengers would be willing to spend more for those more-comfortable seats, the argument still holds: it's just that it's more likely that one part of the argument (the airlines will charge more) is true than it is that the other (they'll lose revenue) will.

Hi Bunuel,

I wonder how B can be an assumption.

Per the argument - This law, however, comes with a downside: airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane, and therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.

So it is already given in the premise that "airlines would have to reduce the number of seats on each plane" and B weakens this part. Furmore we have to find the gap between the premises and the conclusion " therefore either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight.". D looks better. Please help.
Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Posts: 57
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Aug 2019, 10:04
Hello experts,
I need some help with this one.

It says that "the seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, measured from the back of one seat to the back of the seat in front of it."

What I don't get in answer choice B is what would the airline gain if it reduced the width of the seats, do we assume that by decreasing the width of the seats in both sides of the plane corridor would allow enough space for new seats to be arranged that would compensate for the loss? I'm confused..
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2019, 10:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by