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

Question

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.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

VivekSri · Answer

OA is B

Premise 1 : Seats on airplanes be no closer together than 29 inches, so airplanes are deisgned like that
Premise 2 : To meet emergency evacuation standards, seats be a minimum of 32 inches apart. So, a federal law has been proposed to mandate a 32-inch minimum distance between seats
Conclusion : 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.

Now let us start the option Elimination :

A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance. ->  This is already stated in this, that either charge more for each ticket or lose revenue on each flight. So if passengers would not be willing to pay, the will loose revenue. So it cant be the assumption.

B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.
Now this is the assumption that there is no other way we can resolve this issue. For example there is

Now what if we reduce the width of the seats we can include one more column of the seat. For example there were total 3 column of the sheet, now after reducing the width column can increase to 4.

So it clearly means we cant do this because if we can do this, conclusion will fail apart. so this must be the assumption.

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

The conclusion is about the revenue/charge of the ticket, no discussion about the compliant or not . OOS.

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.
 This is no way possible. so OOS. 
E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.
  The talk is about the same plane, 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. There is no talk about the new planes, so OOS.

Bunuel · Answer

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.

reed990 · Answer

Can anyone help with D? It sounds like the weight savings from passages and seats might make fuel cost decreased enough. It it is true, then the conclusion is definitely weaken.

Usernamevisible · Answer

Yes — this is a very important correction.
The trap here is:
I treated the conclusion as “financial harm will definitely occur.”
But the passage only argues:
“airlines would have to reduce the number of seats”
AND THEREFORE
“either charge more OR lose revenue.”
That means the argument’s mechanism depends on:
“reduced seat count cannot be avoided.”
That makes B necessary.
D only attacks degree/severity of harm after seat reduction already happens.
Very important distinction.
 
A. Passengers would not be willing to spend more money per ticket for the additional comfort of the 32-inch seat distance.
Why wrong:
The passage says:
airlines would either:
 
 charge more
OR 
 lose revenue  
The argument does NOT require passengers to reject higher prices.
In fact:
if passengers ARE willing to pay more,
the argument still survives because:
ticket prices would still increase.
The conclusion was not:
“airlines will fail financially.”
The conclusion was only:
“there is a downside.”
Higher prices themselves count as downside.
Very important CR skill:
When argument says:
“either X or Y”
You cannot attack it by disproving only ONE branch.
Even if passengers willingly pay more:
the “charge more” branch still exists.
So A is not required.
 
Why advanced students eliminate A fast
Because it changes:
“must charge more”
into
“cannot successfully charge more.”
Those are completely different.
The argument never claimed:
 
 customers reject higher prices 
 airlines cannot maintain profits 
 demand falls  
A introduces unnecessary market psychology.
 
Underlying concept from A
Do not strengthen the conclusion beyond what author claimed.
Author claimed:
“prices may rise.”
A changes it into:
“price rise would fail commercially.”
Extra layer.
Not required.
 
B. It is not possible to reduce by 3 or more inches the width of the seats themselves to compensate for the increased distance.
Correct.
Why this is required:
The entire downside depends on:
32-inch spacing → fewer seats
But what if airlines can redesign seats?
Then:
 
 row spacing increases 
 total seats may remain same  
If same number of seats remain:
then:
 
 no forced reduction 
 no necessary ticket increase 
 no necessary revenue loss  
The entire downside chain collapses.
This is direct mechanism destruction.
 
Very important structural lesson from B
When argument says:
“new rule forces reduction”
Check:
“Can adaptation avoid reduction?”
That is a classic CR mechanism attack.
The author assumed:
seat spacing increase automatically means fewer seats.
B blocks the escape route.
 
Why B is MUCH stronger than D
B attacks:
the required physical mechanism.
D attacks:
a secondary economic offset.
Without B:
the conclusion may never even begin.
Without D:
the conclusion can still survive.
Example:
Suppose airlines save fuel costs.
Even then:
they still may need to raise prices.
So downside still exists.
But if seat redesign preserves seat count:
the whole argument disappears immediately.
 
C. No airlines are currently compliant with the proposed 32-inch seat distance.
Why wrong:
Argument only says:
“most airlines” currently use 29 inches.
Even if:
 
 some airlines already use 32 inches 
 luxury airlines already comply  
the argument still works for the others.
The conclusion does NOT require universal noncompliance.
 
Important CR pattern from C
Watch for:
ALL vs MOST traps.
Passage:
“most airlines”
Choice:
“no airlines”
Classic extreme shift.
If even 10 airlines already comply:
argument can still hold for the remaining majority.
So C adds unnecessary extremeness.
 
Why C feels tempting
Because students think:
“if some airlines already comply, maybe law is not harmful.”
But the argument never claimed:
“harm affects every airline equally.”
Only that the law has downside generally.
 
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.
Why wrong:
This is the subtle trap.
This option assumes:
the conclusion requires NET financial loss.
But the conclusion only says:
airlines would either:
 
 charge more
OR 
 lose revenue  
Fuel savings do not eliminate:
“charge more.”
Suppose:
 
 airlines save fuel costs 
 but still raise ticket prices  
The argument survives.
Also:
the conclusion does NOT require decreased ticket sales.
It only says:
higher ticket prices OR lower revenue.
D changes:
“downside exists”
into
“overall profitability worsens.”
Too strong.
Too economic.
 
Very important lesson from D
Do not convert:
operational inconvenience
into
net profitability argument.
GMAT loves this trap.
The author never analyzed:
 
 total profit 
 net margins 
 operational efficiency 
 complete financial accounting  
D introduces a broader economic model than the argument needs.
 
Another hidden flaw in D
The option says:
“make up for decreased ticket sales.”
But passage never said:
ticket sales decrease.
It said:
fewer seats.
Different thing.
If planes still sell out:
ticket sales may remain maxed.
Very subtle wording mismatch.
 
E. It will not be considerably less expensive to manufacture and operate airplanes that contain fewer seats under the new law.
Why wrong:
This introduces:
manufacturing economics.
But argument only discusses:
flight revenue effects from fewer seats.
The author never depended on:
airplane manufacturing costs.
Even if:
planes become cheaper to build,
airlines still may:
 
 raise ticket prices 
 lose revenue per flight  
Conclusion survives.
 
Why E is weaker than D
D at least relates to flight economics.
E goes even further away:
aircraft production costs.
Too indirect.
Too removed from the conclusion chain.
 
Big accuracy lesson from this question
There are TWO different levels:
Level 1:
Will seat count necessarily decrease?
Level 2:
If seat count decreases, will finances worsen overall?
The argument fundamentally requires Level 1.
B attacks Level 1 directly.
D only attacks Level 2.
In assumption questions:
attack closest to the mechanism usually wins.
 
Speed lesson
When you see:
“X regulation causes Y reduction”
Immediately ask:
“Can the company redesign/adapt to avoid Y?”
That is one of the fastest high-level CR checks.
Because mechanism-preserving assumptions are usually more necessary than downstream economic assumptions.

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

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

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

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