Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Oct 0309:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Are you ready to take the next step in your academic and professional journey? If you’re aspiring to join one of the top 15 MBA programs, we’ve got an exciting opportunity just for you! Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event
Oct 0301:30 PM IST
-11:30 PM IST
With brand new features like:AI-driven Planner tool, 850+ data Insights practice questions and GMAT Focus Edition Adaptive mock tests with ESR+ analysis and personal mentor support, our course is the most comprehensive course for GMAT Focus Edition.- Oct 05
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test. - Oct 06
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Oct 1010:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Oct 1110:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer
[#permalink]
30 Oct 2023, 01:30
30 Oct 2023, 01:30
7
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
44% (02:31) correct
56%
(02:30)
wrong
based on 202
sessions
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.
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.
Joined: 01 May 2022
Posts: 500
Given Kudos: 115
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer
[#permalink]
30 Oct 2023, 02:34
30 Oct 2023, 02:34
2
Kudos
Bunuel
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.
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.
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.
Re: Current federal law mandates that the seats on airplanes be no closer
[#permalink]
05 Nov 2023, 18:45
05 Nov 2023, 18:45
1
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Bunuel
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.
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.
