800orDie
Google says it's an LSAT question. Although it lacks the dressing that would make it a GMAT question, the salad is the same. How's this?
Sally has never received a violation from the Federal Aviation Administration during her 16-year flying career. Sally must therefore be a great pilot.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?
A. Every 5 years, the Federal Aviation Administration expunges violations from the records of its best pilots.
B. Some pilots who have been flying for less than 20 years are not great pilots.
C. In some occupations, a lack of policy or procedural violations does not constitute greatness.
D. Early in their careers, most great pilots receive violations from the Federal Aviation Administration.
E. The Federal Aviation Administration does not publicize information about its pilots' violations or skills.
hmm.. My take is Option D
Underlying Assumption: Sally never received a violation from FAA
Option A: Best pilots may not be same as great pilots
Option B: Adding another factor i.e. flying for less than 20 years. This doesn't negates the underlying assumption
Option C: Some specific occupations may or may not include the specified occupation
Option D: It states that most great pilots receive violations early in their careers hence directly negates the underlying assumption
Option E: Whether FAA publicize or don't publicize the violations it doesn't matter. What matters is whether there are any violations receive
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Chanakya