It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 00:05

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is

Author Message
Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 586

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2005, 16:40
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. Many of the fatalities that occur in such collisions are caused not by the collision itself, but by an inherent flaw in the cabin design of most aircraft, in which seats, by restricting access to emergency exits, impede escape. Therefore, to reduce the total number of fatalities that result annually from such collisions, the airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.

10. Which one of the following proposals, if implemented together with the proposal made in the passage, would improve the prospects for achieving the stated objective of reducing fatalities?

(B) The airlines should not be permitted to increase further the number of flights in order to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
(C) Airport authorities should be required to streamline their passenger check-in procedures to accommodate the increased number of passengers served by the airlines.
(D) Airport authorities should be required to refine security precautions by making them less conspicuous without making them less effective.
(E) The airlines should not be allowed to increase the ticket price for each passenger to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 844

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2005, 20:47
B is the best ( addresses the first reason for fatalities)

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 668

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2005, 21:12
B.....

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5039

Kudos [?]: 425 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2005, 01:16

(B) The airlines should not be permitted to increase further the number of flights in order to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.

(C) Airport authorities should be required to streamline their passenger check-in procedures to accommodate the increased number of passengers served by the airlines.
- out of scope

(D) Airport authorities should be required to refine security precautions by making them less conspicuous without making them less effective.
- out of scope

(E) The airlines should not be allowed to increase the ticket price for each passenger to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
- not important

Between A and B, I'll go with B. Since one of the concerns was the increase in the number of flights, then airlines should be prevented from increasing that number (and thus increasing traffic) to offset the reduction in seats.

A is not so good as airlines need not buy aircrafts, and yet increase the number of flights by using the current planes they possess.

B it is.

Kudos [?]: 425 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 543

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Location: Canuckland

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2005, 01:54
B.

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 557

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 03:43
(B) too

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 331

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 04:46
B

GA

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 373

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 06:53
gandy_achar wrote:
B

GA

Agree with A.

If increasing the no. of flights is allowed , then the increased traffic and hence the no. of possible collisions would increase, which defeats the entire purpose of removing sets next to emergency exits.

HMTG.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5039

Kudos [?]: 425 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 07:59
HowManyToGo wrote:
gandy_achar wrote:
B

GA

Agree with A.

If increasing the no. of flights is allowed , then the increased traffic and hence the no. of possible collisions would increase, which defeats the entire purpose of removing sets next to emergency exits.

HMTG.

In this question you're asked to strengthen the proposal made in the passage. A does not do anything to strenthen it.

Kudos [?]: 425 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 586

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 16:57
The OA is B.

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 373

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 22:19
ywilfred wrote:
HowManyToGo wrote:
gandy_achar wrote:
B

GA

Agree with A.

If increasing the no. of flights is allowed , then the increased traffic and hence the no. of possible collisions would increase, which defeats the entire purpose of removing sets next to emergency exits.

HMTG.

In this question you're asked to strengthen the proposal made in the passage. A does not do anything to strenthen it.

Typo what I had meant was "ageed with B" ,my explanation also uses B, thanks for pointing it out ywilfred.

HMTG.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1709

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2005, 22:38
yup, B.

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2005, 04:24
B...what else

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

14 Jun 2005, 04:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by