A country's Aeronautics Board (AB) employs inspectors who make routine

Easy C, if the rules themselves have changed, any comparison between the two(old and new) stand null and void.

I was stuck between C and E. And, what confused me about C is if the criteria changed, hence explaining the increase in violations; how would that neutralize or not affect the increase in accidents for the same year?

The argument is set up as

cause: more violations of AB rules this year than last year by Azure Airlines
effect: Azure Airlines had more accidents as a result of not meeting standards

Where am I going wrong?

C. The AB increased the length and rigor of its inspections this year, compared to last year.

Direct question. All other choices are not related to the argument.

The correct answer is option (C).


Understanding the passage:
1. Aeronautics Board (AB) of a country does routine inspections of all aircraft, yearly
2. Azura airlines' aircraft inspected in December
3. Considerably more violations of AB rules were found this year, compared to last year
4. This will explain why Azura had more accidents this year than last year.

Logic of the author: More the violations/defects in aircraft this year, hence more accidents this year (as compared to last year)


Question: What would cast most doubt on the conclusion i.e. what would weaken the conclusion?

Thought Process:
In what condition would the reason for more accidents not be the violations observed?

Condition 1: What if this year, Azura airlines operated on extremely dangerous routes where the chances of accidents happening are significantly high?
In such a case, the real cause for the increased number of accidents may not the violations, but the higher proportion of accident prone routes serviced this year as compared to last year.

Assumption 1: Azura did not operate on a significantly higher number of extremely high probability of accident routes this year, as compared to last year.

Condition 2: What if this year, the AB got stricter, and started marking as violations things that they would not have marked as violations last year. Then, we cannot say that Azura's aircrafts are any worser than they were last year, just that now they are being called out on violations more than last year. Even in such a case, we cannot say that these violations are the reason for the increase in accidents.

Assumption 2: The AB has not gotten stricter this year, and marked a significant number as violations this year what they would not have marked as violations last year.

Any statement that goes against our assumptions are solid weakeners. Let us see the option choices.

A. Some aviation experts in other countries consider certain AB rules to be too lax and too easy to get around.

Irrelevant. It does not matter what other aviation experts think about AB rules.

B. Azura's routes are no more dangerous than are those of most other airlines.

Very interesting choice, if you have followed my analysis . But this is also irrelevant. Because the comparison here is between Azura's routes and other airlines this year. That has no bearing on why Azura's number of accidents has increased. Not the correct choice.

C. The AB increased the length and rigor of its inspections this year, compared to last year.

Correct. This goes against our assumption 2 and is a solid weakener. If the statement it true, then the quality of the aircraft remains the same between last year and this year, for Azura. Just that AB is stricter and calling out more violations this year as compared to last year. But aircraft quality being the same, these violations cannot be the reason for the increased number of accidents. This weakens our conclusion.

D. Prior to last year Azura had an excellent safety record with very few accidents.

Irrelevant. Past performance has no bearing on the increased accidents observed this year and reasons for it.

E. In both years the AB report on Azura did not include violations on airplanes owned by Azura but leased by another airline.

Interesting choice. The comparison in the argument is between aircraft that were included in AB's report in both years only. The basis for comparison is also the same - in both years, these other aircraft were not counted. Hence, this cannot be the reason for the increase in accidents this year (in both years, these other aircraft were not counted, so how will this cause an increase this year?). Hence, this cannot be a weakener.

At best, this option will tell us that there are more violations by Azura than actually accounted for. So, this option is at best a weak strengthener.

Cheers!

I undestand why c could be right but it still does nothing to explain why Azura had more accidents this year than last year.

I took me several times of reading E to realize i was reading it wrong.
I initially thought it said something like "The AB report only flagged issues on LEASED planes, not planes directly owned be Azura".

This is obviously wrong, it actually says "In addition to the AB report on issues with Azura planes, there were other issues with planes Azura was leasing out that WERE NOT included in the AB report"

Can anyone please explain why option E is wrong ??

I don't know whether i am getting the right meaning of Option E or not !! (Being a non-native speaker)

What i understand from option E is that the planes on which reports were made do not belong to Azura because those planes were leased by some other airline. So in this way the conclusion falls apart. Isn't it ?

GMATNinja
GMATNinjaTwo
mira93
nightblade354
eakabuah

(E) indicates that Azura owns two types of planes: those they use themselves and those rented by another airline. It also tells us that the report, both years, has included only the planes that Azura both owns and uses.

This confirms that additional violations that took place this year were, in fact, on planes that Azura uses, not planes that Azura leases to another airline. If the additional violations were on planes that Azura used, then we have even more reason to believe the conclusion that the increase in violations explains the increase in accidents.

So (E) certainly does not weaken the argument, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

avigutman
I have doubts related to how C is correct.
This choice just tells the reason why the number of violations of Aeronautics Board (AB) is up this year. But this choice doesn't weaken why accidents are happening.
However, B gives us the other reason why the numbers of accidents are more than those of the previous year.

Can you elaborate on this please, taha1234? I don't see what you're seeing in B.

This is what we're trying to weaken:

So, we're not trying to weaken why the number of accidents went up; we're trying to weaken the alleged reasoning for the uptick in accidents. One way to do so is to offer an alternative reason for the uptick. Another way to do so is to offer an explanation for the uptick in reported violations (e.g. if more violations were reported due to corrupt investigators who received insufficient bribes - whereas last year the bribes were sufficient - well then the "violated" rules weren't really violated, so that can't be the reason for the uptick in accidents).

avigutman
Thanks Avi
Now I get it what we are actually weakening.
However, I have doubts related to B. B is giving the alternative reason for the upticks in the accidents this year. If Azura's routes are more dangerous than those of most other airlines, then we can infer that this is a reason for the uptick in the number of accidents.

If you change the blue above to "they were last year", your inference is correct. As it stands, though, that inference is false taha1234.

There are basically to two ways to weaken an argument. Let me explain them by sticking to this question

1. This fact explains that.....- What if this fact doesn't explain the reason for the increase in number of accidents. Their could be an another fact that could explain the increase in number of accidents. This way we weaken the conclusion by attacking its foundation - the reason on which the conclusion stands. The answer choice (C) is based on this principle.

2. This fact explains that....What if this fact did not lead to the increase in number of accidents. This way we weaken the conclusion by direction that a conclusion can take. No we have a new conclusion stands diametrically opposite to a previous one.

The option that would cast the most doubt on the conclusion in the passage is:

C. The AB increased the length and rigor of its inspections this year, compared to last year.

If the AB increased the length and rigor of its inspections this year, it suggests that they were more thorough and stringent in identifying violations compared to the previous year. Therefore, the higher number of reported violations could be attributed to the increased scrutiny rather than indicating a direct correlation between violations and accidents. This undermines the assumption that the increased number of violations is the sole or primary reason for the increase in accidents. It suggests that the change in inspection procedures could be a confounding factor that needs to be considered.

What's the heart of this question?

Well, inspections were conducted. As a result, considerably more violations were detected. And because of more violations, Azura had more accidents this year, compared to last year.

Our goal is to attack the premise: the inspections part.

A is eliminated because it gives us info about some (1 percent ) of the considerations of the aviation experts of other countries, which are out of the scope of this question.
What about the remaining 99 percent of the info?
Moreover, if the rules are too lax and too easy to get around then a considerable number of violations should not have been detected by the inspections in the first place.
Inconclusive evidence. Gone!

B is eliminated because all it tells us is that the routes are equally dangerous for almost all the airlines.
And if the routes are equally dangerous for almost all the airlines then almost all the airlines should have had more accidents this year, compared to last year.
Why did only Azura have more accidents this year, compared to last year?
Plus, it doesn't discuss the inspections, the premise.

Keep C because it tells us that the length and the rigor of inspection increased this year.
For example, let's assume that last year, the length of the inspection was 100 hours.
But, this year, the length of the inspection is 200 hours.
The more the number of hours of inspection, the more the number of detected violations. This is a possible scenario.
Moreover, let's suppose that the rigor of the inspection last year consisted of 100 tests.
But the rigor of the inspection this year is 200 tests.
The greater the rigor, the more the number of detected violations. This is a possible scenario.

Essentially, because the length and the rigor of the inspection increased this year, more violations were unraveled.

However, it might be true that the same violations existed when the inspection was conducted last year but they couldn't emerge because the length and the rigor of the inspection last year were not so great as those of the inspection this year.

The inspections changed. Hence, the results also changed.
We have attacked the premise, the inspections. Goal achieved!

D is eliminated because how the airline's safety record prior to last year was is immaterial.
The question clearly states that Azura had more accidents this year, compared to last year because the inspections reported considerably more violations of AB rules this year.
Plus, it doesn't discuss the inspections, the premise.


E is eliminated because whether the planes were owned or leased is insignificant. The question clearly states that Azura had more accidents this year, compared to last year because the inspections reported considerably more violations of AB rules this year.
Plus, it doesn't discuss the inspections, the premise.

Thus, C, if true, would cast most doubt on the conclusion in the passage.

I hope I'm crystal-clear 🙏

Posted from my mobile device