It is currently 18 Dec 2017, 10:55

Final Week of R1 Decisions:

CHAT Rooms | MIT Sloan | McCombs 


Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1295

Kudos [?]: 1119 [0], given: 62

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 05:14
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (01:47) correct 59% (01:45) wrong based on 263 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Kudos [?]: 1119 [0], given: 62

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 9

WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 08:25
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.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 9

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 115

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 204

Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
GPA: 3
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 08:39
+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
.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 204

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Oct 2015
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 146

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 11:46
E in my opinion.

If operating costs are reduced due to lesser seats,revenue may remain same as before and not decrease.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 146

Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 46

Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 11:52
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

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 46

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Jun 2016
Posts: 29

Kudos [?]: 11 [2], given: 48

Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 15:37
2
This post received
KUDOS
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.
talks about manufacturing and we are concerned about revenue. Kill it.



Answer B

Kudos [?]: 11 [2], given: 48

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 19

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.42
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Reviews Badge
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 16:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.

_________________

Please give KUDOS if this post was helpful!

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 19

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Jan 2017
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 31

CAT Tests
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2017, 10:30
The Answer should be D.

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.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 31

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 May 2017
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2017, 07:46
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.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer   [#permalink] 10 Nov 2017, 07:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.