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

It is currently 22 Oct 2018, 01:41

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

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: 1381
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 06:14
2
6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (02:19) correct 57% (02:23) wrong based on 494 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.

_________________

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 77
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, 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
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 141
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
WE: Other (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 09:39
+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
.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Oct 2015
Posts: 3
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

If operating costs are reduced due to lesser seats,revenue may remain same as before and not decrease.
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 639
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 (S)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 12:52
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Jun 2016
Posts: 29
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 16:37
2
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

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 195
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.4
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, 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.

_________________

Please give KUDOS if this post was helpful!

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

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2017, 11:30
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 May 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 50039
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
_________________

New to the Math Forum?
Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread | All You Need for Quant | PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!!

Resources:
GMAT Math Book | Triangles | Polygons | Coordinate Geometry | Factorials | Circles | Number Theory | Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets | PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders | GMAT Prep Software Analysis | SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS) | Tricky questions from previous years.

Collection of Questions:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat

DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.


What are GMAT Club Tests?
Extra-hard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer &nbs [#permalink] 24 May 2018, 07:52
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  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.