The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because

A is the ans
B talks about the costly fittings so out of scope
C talks abt buildings with fire detectors out of scope
D. It weakens the argument
E. Out of scope

Sent from my GT-I9082 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

let us simplify the argument -

two causes for fatalities in collisions -

1. Collision itself
2. flaw in cabin design.

the author strengthens point #2 by giving this reasoning -

flaw in cabin design --> restricts access to emergency exits --> higher fatalities.

Conclusion -

fix flaw in cabin design --> lower fatalities

let us look at the answer options -

A - Correct answer.
this provides a useful comparison.
In theaters,
restricted access --> higher fatalities
remove restrictions --> reduction in fatalities.

B - Incorrect.
We are not concerned with "costs", but with reduction in fatalities.

C - Incorrect.
Not relevant. We need something that discusses "restriction of access/removal of such restrictions" and its impact on fatalities.
"smoke detectors" do not restrict/facilitate access to exits.

D - Incorrect.
the argument does not make clear whether "larger planes" mean better access. Moreover, this talks about the seriousness of injuries, not fatalities. Irrelevant.

E - Incorrect.
Nothing to do with access to exits. Irrelevant.

broall . I really appreciate your effort to compile LSAT questions . Thanks for that . However , I guess this question Day 23 , Question 7 is not apt for GMAT . In GMAT , we never base our argument based on the validity of the argument in other similar circumstances . These are generally eliminated first . I might be wrong . But , please have a look at this question again.

(A) The number of deaths that occurred in theater fires because theater patrons could not escape was greatly reduced when theaters were required to have aisles leading to each exit. - Correct answer as it relates the seat design and impedance for an exit.

(B) Removing the seats that block emergency exits on aircraft will require a costly refitting of aircraft cabins. - Cost is not a parameter to think upon. Out of scope.

(C) In the event of fire, public buildings equipped with smoke detectors have fewer fatalities than do public buildings not so equipped. - Equipping smoke detectors doesn't relate properly to the seat design and fatality in flights. Out of scope.

(D) In the event of collision, passengers on planes with a smaller passenger capacity generally suffer more serious injury than do passengers on planes with a larger passenger capacity. - The number of seats is not a parameter. Out of scope.

(E) The safety belts attached to aircraft seats function to protect passengers from the full force of impact in the event of a collision. - Safety belts don't help in this matter. Out of scope.

Hello Experts,
In GMAT , we never base our argument based on the validity of the argument in other similar circumstances . These are generally eliminated first . I might be wrong . Can someone please shed some light?

GMATNinja Bunuel KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep

Hello Experts,
In GMAT , we never base our argument based on the validity of the argument in other similar circumstances.
These are generally eliminated first . I might be wrong . Can someone please shed some light?

Hi,

I'm not an expert (just a student lol) but this happens a lot in RC. I wouldn't think about it too deep regarding CR, because if you analyse the stem it's just a strengthening question.

(A) "The number of deaths that occurred in theater fires because theater patrons could not escape was greatly reduced when theaters were required to have aisles leading to each exit."

Option (A) provides support for the proposal through analogy. It compares the situation in theaters, where requiring aisles leading to each exit reduced deaths in fires, to the proposal to remove seats that block access to emergency exits on aircraft. The analogy suggests that implementing safety measures (removing barriers to exits) can lead to a reduction in fatalities, which supports the proposal.

(B) "Removing the seats that block emergency exits on aircraft will require a costly refitting of aircraft cabins."

Option (B) weakens the proposal because it introduces a potential downside, which is the cost associated with refitting aircraft cabins. While this information might be important for considering the feasibility of the proposal, it doesn't directly support the idea of removing seats to improve safety.

(C) "In the event of fire, public buildings equipped with smoke detectors have fewer fatalities than do public buildings not so equipped."

Option (C) discusses the effectiveness of smoke detectors in public buildings, which is not directly related to the proposal to remove seats blocking access to emergency exits on aircraft. It doesn't provide relevant support for the proposal.

(D) "In the event of collision, passengers on planes with a smaller passenger capacity generally suffer more serious injury than do passengers on planes with a larger passenger capacity."

Option (D) is not supportive of the proposal because it talks about passenger capacity and injury severity, which is different from the main concern of removing seats to improve emergency exit access and reduce fatalities.

(E) "The safety belts attached to aircraft seats function to protect passengers from the full force of impact in the event of a collision."

Option (E) discusses the function of safety belts but doesn't directly address the proposal to remove seats that restrict access to emergency exits. It focuses on a different aspect of safety.

Upon reevaluation, option (A) indeed provides the most relevant support for the proposal by drawing an analogy to another context where a similar safety measure was effective in reducing deaths.