How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studie

You're thinking along the right lines. Let's look at the information we have in terms of whether the presence or absence of something leads to a "sure win" or a "sure loss".

Let's say that a Formula 1 team is training its drivers to win an upcoming race. The drivers' training includes two things: physical (X) and mental (Y) conditioning. However, someone then says that these two things (X and Y) cannot compensate for actual time spent driving F1 cars (Z). They then conclude that the training program needs to be reworked. The argument stops here, without getting into whether the training program will actually make the drivers win.

Now, when we say that X and Y cannot compensate for Z, we mean that Z cannot be left out. However, that doesn't mean that the presence of Z will be sufficient to guarantee a win. In other words, ~ the absence of Z will lead to a "sure loss", but the presence of Z does not lead to a "sure win".

Back to the question. You negated C correctly:
The number of airline crashes will not decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.

However, this doesn't necessarily weaken the author's conclusion that ~ the existing training program is insufficient and that it needs to be reworked. That is, saying that Z cannot guarantee an outcome doesn't necessarily mean that Z is not part of the solution.

Let's take a look at the negated version of D:
Lack of actual flying time is not an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.

This is great, because it is directly telling us that Z is not part of the solution. Now we know that the author is wrong, and we can leave the training program as it is.
_________________

I believe it is (D). I came close to chosing (C).

The author says that lack flying time cannot be compensated by training on other factors. That means lack of flying time must an important factor.
(C) is a trap because if we negate (C) we get

The number of airline crashes will not decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.

Well this could be true if the airline companies just focused on more flying time and other factors could lead to crashes. This does not break the author's argument but (D) does.

1) How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes?

2) Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes.

3) To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit.

4) But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots’ lack of actual flying time.

5) Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes. <--conclusion

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors.
- No. The author here is challenging airliens to rethink their trainig approach by providing more actual flying time. A is out.

(B) Commercial pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers.
- If so, any form of training will do. B is out.

(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.
- C is close, but 'will' says that the number of crashes decreasing is definite as long as there is an increase in actual flying time.

(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.
- This is the assumption required. If lack of actual flying time contributes to pilot error in plane crahses, then the pilot should be given more actual flying time so he/she becomes more proficient.

(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs.
- Out of scope.

D is best.

Just to touch on a little bit more on negation here:

If we negate (D), then it will read as:

Lack of actual flying time is not an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.

Obviously, by negating D, the conclusion can no longer hold.

However, if you negate (C), then it will read as:

The number of airlines crashes will not decrease if pilot training program focus on increasing actual flying time.

Okay, by negating this, we know that the number of airline crashes will not decrease, but it does not improve either. So negating C does not hold up the conclusion.

OA is D. This the answer from Ron expert

this is a good use of the reversal method for (d).

the problem with (c) is that it implies that increasing the flying hours, all by itself, WILL decrease the number of crashes.
this definitely isn't necessary to the argument (which strongly suggests that a decrease in crashes will come from a combination of extra flying hours + other mentioned factors, such as "classroom instruction" and "emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit").
_________________

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors. - It is already stated in the argument. Cannot be an assumption. Argument talks about increasing the training programs. - Incorrect

(B) Commercial pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers. - This is also a given piece of information which can be inferred from the given passage. - Incorrect

(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time. - The use of words like "will" makes it an obvious thing. Focusing on actual flying time may not decrease crashes. - Incorrect

(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes. - "Important contributor" states that the lact of actual flying time is one of the contributors for pilor errors. This fills the gap in the argument. Hence this is the assumption - Correct

(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs. - It can be considered to be out of scope - Incorrect

How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes. To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots’ lack of actual flying time. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors.
(B) Commercial pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers.
(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.
(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.
(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs.


Hi src_saurav

E is a classic GMAT trap which talks about the premise rather than the assumption

Simplifying the argument:

Premise1 : Currentlessons focus on in-class lessons ( theory and comm)
Premise2 : The current type of lessons is inadquate

C: Increasing flying time during lessons will decrease the number of crashes

This is a logical gap type question.

To complete this argument.

Current lessons are inadequate. A: Because lack of actual flying time is causing error. So increasing flying lessons will decrease the number of crashes.

E panders to premise 1. It has nothing to do with the assumption or conclusion of the author

Goal/conclusion-airlines should rethink training approach

plan- why plane crashes happening…due to pilots error
but training program do not compensate for pilot's lack of actual flying time

hence training program is not effetive

options- A- can eliminate,,,then conclusion never says to rethink
B-if Pilots undergo constantly,,,eroors shud not ocucr,,still crahes r happening
C-this is answering properly,,
TRAINING PROGRAM IS lack of flying hours

How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes. To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots' lack of actual flying time. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors.
(B) Commercial pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers.
(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.
(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.
(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs.

Problem: pilot error accounts for 2/3 of commercial plane crashes. The plan is to reduce this ratio - ratio of number of crashes that result from pilot error to the number of crashes from all causes.

C says that increasing actual flying time will decrease number of airline crashes. Number of plane crashes may be reduced, but the the ratio of pilot error crashes to total crashes may remain same. Therefore this answer is wrong.

hope it helps

generis nightblade354 GMATNinja VeritasKarishma Harshgmat Abhi077 aragonn

Please help me to cross out (C)



Conclusion: the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.
(Hope first sentence is not the conclusion)
Premise: increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit shall not compensate for
pilots' lack of actual flying time


I applied to bridge the gap method here:
a number of airline crashes = reducing commercial crashes.
pilot training programs that focus on increasing actual flying time. = pilots' lack of actual flying time.

What subtle difference is the one that (D) scores over (C) ?
_________________

adkikani - surly tough one ! I am surprised how this is 35% medium question while more than 1400 have attempted.

premises:
A. Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes.
B. To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit.
C. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots' lack of actual flying time.
D. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Conclusion: the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes. - yes you are correct on this front. - an easy way to identify this thing is use of because. a because of b/ b because of a . do the analysis and find which one make more sense.
Now a moment on vocab used in the conclusion. it says rethink. not changed not removed. this means airlines should re-evaluate its approach in this case. may be it is right may be it is wrong. watch out for the use of moderate vocab. none of the statements shows surity.

Pre-thinking: As we know there can be multiple assumption. here is my pre-thinking.
1. crashes can be avoided by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit.
2. lack of flying time can not be compensated by classroom.
Let see what we can say about this actual flying time. Given the stimulus, are we sure, if this taught, it will decrease number of crashes. Think of it this way --- if you learned driving, good hands on, are you sure there will not be any crashes. Also study does not say that crashes are due to lack of this hand-on.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends? - mark the word argument - what reasoning's assumption in this case.

(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time. - very close answer. basically lack of flying time is real reason for crashes. if something will work on it, problem will go away till an extant for sure. now with the given word 'rethink', my take on this point is that increasing the flying time can result in improvement,but can not too.

(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes. -- if we negate it, means this is not an important contributor, well then conclusion breaks.

i think D is the best between the two. Let me know if you find some gaps in reasoning.

How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes. To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots' lack of actual flying time. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

Pre-thinking- But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots' lack of actual flying time.

If the measures undertaken will reduce the crashes then no problem. No argument.

But author thinks otherwise that crashes will not reduce.

WHY?

Because author thinks lack of actual flying is important parameter in affecting the number of commercial plane crashes.


(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.

So till this point I know that lack of actual flying is important parameter in affecting the number of commercial plane crashes.

But Can I be sure that if flying time in training for pilots is increased then number of plane crashes will definitely decrease.

No.

One possibility - May be even if the flying time is increased still it needs adequate associated classroom training to be effective for pilots......

So let's say it's the balanced combination of classroom training and flying training that will be effective in reducing number of plane crashes.

But because only classroom training is being implemented then authors argument holds. I can eliminate C.


(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.

Matches our pre-thinking. Ans : D

Hope this helps!! adkikani
_________________

Pilot error ----> major contributor to crashes

To reduce crashes -----> upgrade training programs

Upgraded training programs ----> lesser/no Pilot error

lack of actual flying time ----> Inadequate Training programs

Hence lack of actual flying time ----> Likelihood of Pilot errors

I think the key to choose D over C, in this argument is that "nowhere in the argument it mentions that currently actual flying is part of the training programs, rather it only says lack of actual flying time"

Answer choice C mentions "increasing actual flying time", but we do not know if "actual flying time" is part of the training programs or whether if it is a part & it is currently inadequate & requires to be increased.

D is correct, firstly it uses verbatim "lack of actual flying time" and "commercial plane crashes" & secondly since the argument says upgraded training programs cannot compensate for "lack of actual flying time" hence Pilots are still susceptible to commit errors, hence actual flying time is important to reduce Pilot errors.


Answer D.


Thanks,
GyM
_________________

There are two problems with the language of answer choice C:
C addresses "airline crashes," whereas our premises and conclusion are limited to "commercial plane crashes." This knocks C out as a correct answer choice.
Further, C speaks in absolute language: the crashes "will" decrease. However, our premises and conclusion in the stem are somewhat softer than that. It isn't necessary to the author's limited conclusion that the "airlines should rethink their approach" that we absolutely know that taking a particular measure WILL definitely have the desired result.
_________________

Right, so after you have negated it, you get -> "The number of airline crashes will not decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time." Doesn't this statement now weaken the author's conclusion? Because if increasing actual flying time doesn't help reduce the crashes, there is no point on rethinking their approach. And if negating a choice -> Weakens the argument, it is the right choice.

I did choose D but I struggled to eliminate C. I tried to apply the Assumption Negation technique but that didn't help me. Perhaps I am not applying it the right away.

AjiteshArun, Could you please advise on this?

Expersts nedd your help!!!!
Hey, really stuck on option C. I understand option D is slightly better than C. But negating C also hurts the argument. So why can't C be the answer.

Hi pankaj2k19, just checking whether you've gone through some of the other posts in the thread, like this one and this one.
_________________

Source: PowerScore

Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The final sentence of the stimulus is the conclusion. This conclusion relies on the premise that increased classroom instruction and greater emphasis on cockpit communication (the airlines’ training approach) can not compensate for a lack of actual flying time in diminishing pilot error. But what do we know about a lack of flying time? How do we know it’s important to compensate for a lack of actual flying time? Look for an answer that protects the idea of actual flying time being essential to the lessening of pilot error.

Answer Choice (A): This straightforward answer appears tempting at first. By suggesting an alternative approach (one that addresses lack of actual flying time over classroom instruction and communication skills) to the problem, one might assume that the author must hold that there is a training program that can eliminate pilot error. The goal, however, is not total elimination of pilot error, but simply addressing the problem (and presumably minimizing it). Negate the answer and ask, “How would the author respond to this?” The author might reply that the currently proposed plan cuts pilot error by 55%, but one addressing lack of actual flying time might do so by 99%. Neither program eliminates pilot error, but the argument remains potentially valid.

Answer Choice (B): Whether or not commercial airline pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers is irrelevant to the original argument. If we negate the statement to read “commercial pilots do not routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers” the argument’s conclusion remains intact as it is only concerned with the airlines rethinking their approach because it does not address a lack of flying time.

Answer Choice (C): Though also an attractive answer choice, the author concludes only that the airlines should rethink their strategy, as classroom instruction and an increased emphasis on communication can not compensate for lack of actual flying time. The author does not hold that an increase in actual flying time will have any effect (in fact, an increase in flying time is not mentioned), only that the specific plan proposed by the airlines does not adequately compensate for the lack of actual flying time.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus explicitly states that the airlines should rethink their training approach as it is unrealistic to expect their proposed measures to compensate for actual lack of flying time. If lack of flying time is in fact an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes (the problem the airlines are attempting to remedy), training approaches that do not adequately address this important contributor are inadequate and should be rethought.

Answer Choice (E): The author does not assume that communication skills are not important to pilot training programs, only that they can not compensate for a lack of actual flying time.

Hi everyone,

How do the airlines expect to prevent commercial plane crashes? Studies have shown that pilot error contributes to two-thirds of all such crashes. To address this problem, the airlines have upgraded their training programs by increasing the hours of classroom instruction and emphasizing communication skills in the cockpit. But it is unrealistic to expect such measures to compensate for pilots' lack of actual flying time. Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

Pre-thinking:
The author believes strongly that the lack of flying time is an important factor.
Let's negate this statement-> lack of actual flying time is not an important factor in decreasing the pilot's errors during a commercial flight. Then the argument breaks since it is through the lack of flying time that the author draws her conclusion

(A) Training programs can eliminate pilot errors.
The argument is concerned with decreasing the pilot's errors. Hence incorrect

(B) Commercial pilots routinely undergo additional training throughout their careers.
We are talking about increasing the training hours so even if there is not usually additional training throughout the pilot's career it does no impact the argument at all. Hence incorrect

(C) The number of airline crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.
Wrong entity. We are talking about commercial planes' crashes not normal airline crashes. Hence incorrect

(D) Lack of actual flying time is an important contributor to pilot error in commercial plane crashes.
In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

(E) Communication skills are not important to pilot training programs.
Not necessarily. They might be important but they might not be as important as flying time as for reducing # of crashes. Hence incorrect