Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases

Question

Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason NOT to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?

Objective: prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation NOT from fire

(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it passengers to leave the cabin.

- Even if its taking longer time still the passangers are safe from toxic gas

(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive. -expensive? Not related
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting. - Objective is to protect against tocix gass not fire, not related
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff. -Before flight took off? Instructions can be overlooked, this can lead to inhalation of toxic gasses & death
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the airplane. -This strengthens the argument

As the objective is to prevent from toxic gas inhalation, D will weaken the conclusion

Bunuel · Answer

A strong reason for rejecting the recommendation would be that the hoods endanger passengers. Passengers delayed in exiting the plane are more exposed to the risk of a gas explosion.

Choice A says that the hoods would delay passengers and is thus the best answer.

If some airlines are unwilling to buy the hoods, it might be necessary to require them to, so B is incorrect.

That the hoods protect from only one major risk is no reason in itself for rejection, so C is not correct.

That some passengers ignore safety instructions is also no reason for rejection, so D is incorrect.

Choice E is not a good answer; it supports the recommendation by indication that the hoods might enable more passengers to exit a plane.

Answer: A.

Abhishek009 · Answer

Harmful effects of Airplane accidents -
  
 1. Release of toxic gases - passenger deaths from gas inhalation
  2. Explosion of gases soon after being released

Recommendation  - Passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.

Addresses problem of deaths from toxic gas inhalation but the explosion of the gases can not be eliminated.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?

IMHO there are two possible close option.

A. Aids the process of ignition of gases - Magnifies / aids the process of explosion
 
 C. Does nothing to magnify the effect of explosion.

Thus (A) weakens the argument more than (C) , hence correct answer will be (A)

broall · Answer

Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason  NOT  to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?

(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it passengers to leave the cabin.
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive.
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting.
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff.
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the airplane.

Source: GMAC Paper Test, Test Code #25, Section 6, question 9

Same passage with different stem question:  LINK

thangvietnam · Answer

I choose A, not C. if C happen, it is still good to implement the hook. 
but it A happen, it maybe is not good to implement installing the hook. 
hard one

Mick1005 · Answer

I Choose A.
A) Lets Keep it. Although this doesn't seem the best.
B)Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive- Poor Argument. reject immediately.
C)Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting-The argument mentions smoke inhalation problem. This concerns with explosion. Reject
D)Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff.-Reject it. Doesn't concern us.
E)In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the airplane.-Supports the conclusion in the argument. Rejected.

Waiting for the OA

anamika4 · Answer

I choose as A as the conclusion is passenger must exit swifly

Sent from my Pixel 2 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Prashant10692 · Answer

A.

passengers must exist plain as swiftly as possible.

If Hood adds considerable time and its better off the hood than with it.

I think its sub 600.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason  NOT  to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?

(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it passengers to leave the cabin. - Correct. The argument is that the customers should evacuate as early as possible since there are chances of explosion. 
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive. - expensive? wrong 
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting. - If the passengers can get out of the plane fast enough before the explosion, the hood would have done its job. 
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff. -Before flight took off?  wrong 
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the airplane. - This strengthens the argument

Doer01 · Answer

Hi,
I missed a key information given in the premise that the official uses to form conclusion: “to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation”. 
I chose C thinking that what good is a smoke preventing hood if the gas explodes since it’s given in the first sentence that the toxic gas explodes as soon as it is released. But that’s not the point around which conclusion revolves.
That’s where A wins over C.

Posted from my mobile device

rajibbanerjee2011 · Answer

Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to   prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation  , safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases.

Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason NOT to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?

Objective:  prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation NOT from fire

(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it passengers to leave the cabin.

- Even if its taking longer time still the passangers are safe from toxic gas

(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive. -expensive?   Not related   
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting.   - Objective is to protect against tocix gass not fire, not related  
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff. -Before flight took off?    Instructions can be overlooked, this can lead to inhalation of toxic gasses & death   
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the airplane. -This strengthens the argument

As the objective is to prevent from toxic gas inhalation, D will weaken the conclusion

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  GMATNinja   KarishmaB 
Is option C wrong because the main goal is "in order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation". Option C says that smoke hoods protect passengers from toxic gases and does nothing to prevent explosion which is fine for us, thus, option C is incorrect. On the other hand, option A creates a doubt that the delay might increase the chance that passengers get some amount of gases with smoke hoods put on them, this casts a doubt on our main goal. 
Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong somewhere.

GMATNinja · Answer

There are two dangers presented by the gases: 1) toxicity and 2) risk of explosion.

The author is not concerned with labeling one of the dangers as the "main" danger. Instead, the author is simply making the case that if we can reduce one of those dangers (by providing smoke hoods), then we should.

Even though smoke hoods wouldn't help with risk of explosion (as indicated by choice C), they WOULD help with toxicity. Having one danger is better than having two, so (C) doesn't affect the recommendation.

(A) does affect the recommendation. Yes, the smoke hoods reduce the danger of toxicity. However, smoke hoods would also INCREASE the explosion danger considerably.

In short, if there were no disadvantages to the smoke hoods, then we'd have no reason not to implement them. That's why we can eliminate (C).

(A), however, introduces a significant disadvantage to the smoke hoods and a reason to avoid requiring them.

I hope that helps!

Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases

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

Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases

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