GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 26 May 2019, 17:14

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

To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 189
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Mar 2014, 05:18
2
15
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (02:05) correct 33% (02:17) wrong based on 772 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Mar 2014, 16:23
5
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

Dear TooLong150,
I'm happy to answer, because I wrote this question as well.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
So, the warning light comes on only when the plans are headed toward each other head-on. Perhaps the detector is right at the front of the plane, or something like that. This means, planes flying side-by-side, roughly parallel, would not set off the warning light. This means planes could get very close to each other, almost right next to each other, such that the slightly change in direction by either one would cause them to collide, and all the while, the warning light would not come on. This contradicts the Aviation Analyst's argument, because the two side-by-side planes could be dangerously close and the warning light would not come on. Of course, this category of crash might be uncommon, but even so, it points out a hole in the Aviation Analyst's logic, and is thus a weakener.

Does this make sense, or do you have more questions?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2014
Posts: 7
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Mar 2014, 17:34
mikemcgarry wrote:
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

Dear TooLong150,
I'm happy to answer, because I wrote this question as well.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
So, the warning light comes on only when the plans are headed toward each other head-on. Perhaps the detector is right at the front of the plane, or something like that. This means, planes flying side-by-side, roughly parallel, would not set off the warning light. This means planes could get very close to each other, almost right next to each other, such that the slightly change in direction by either one would cause them to collide, and all the while, the warning light would not come on. This contradicts the Aviation Analyst's argument, because the two side-by-side planes could be dangerously close and the warning light would not come on. Of course, this category of crash might be uncommon, but even so, it points out a hole in the Aviation Analyst's logic, and is thus a weakener.

Does this make sense, or do you have more questions?
Mike

Hi Mike,

I narrowed it down to A and C but ended up with C (my reasoning being similar to yours). My thinking for cancelling A was because it was a specific scenario and not a general case. Am i correct thinking this way? Sorry if this is kind of redundant but i ALWAYS end up with 2 answer choices for questions such as these and tend to choose the wrong ones 30-40% of the time.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Mar 2014, 18:27
1
w1ck3d64 wrote:
Hi Mike,

I narrowed it down to A and C but ended up with C (my reasoning being similar to yours). My thinking for cancelling A was because it was a specific scenario and not a general case. Am i correct thinking this way? Sorry if this is kind of redundant but i ALWAYS end up with 2 answer choices for questions such as these and tend to choose the wrong ones 30-40% of the time.

Dear w1ck3d64,
Well, there are a few problems with (A). One of them, as you say --- it's a one-off specific case; any bizarre exceptional thing could happen in a one-off special case. Secondly, we don't know that these planes were the DC-10's with the warning light installed: they could have been any two planes, Air Transylvania or whatever. Finally, when were the warning lights installed? Recently. When did this near collision happen? Recently. Did it happen before or after the DC-10's had warning lights installed? We have no way of knowing. If it happened before the warning lights were even installed, then it certainly doesn't constitute an objection to the efficacy of the warning lights. All this uncertainty means that (A) is not a particular effect objection. That's why it's out.

GMAT CR questions are often written so that wrong answers are tempting. For example, one tempting strategy this answer choice used was a general statement about "two planes", without any indication that the planes were the kind of planes discussed in the prompt. The prompt was about a very specific model of plane, not planes in general. The more you can watch details such as this, the more you will be able to eliminate tempting wrong answers.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9246
Location: Pune, India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Mar 2014, 23:36
2
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

The question is quite straight forward if you keep your eye on the conclusion:

Conclusion: If the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

We have to weaken it. That is, we have to establish that red light could be off and still there could be another plane less than three mins flying time away from this plane.
(A) is irrelevant to our conclusion.
(C) weakens the conclusion.
(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
If anti collision device ignores planes flying parallel, the light could be off but there could be a plane flying parallel to this one which could be less than 3 mins flying time away.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 289
Schools: Schulich '16
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Mar 2014, 02:51
Hi,

I narrowed down to B and C. but finally picked b.

is B wrong just because there wont be any collison but onboard injuries? We aren't concerned about board injuries as of now , only the collisons...right???

Or The argument mentions 3 minutes is suffcient to manuver.

-h
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9246
Location: Pune, India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Mar 2014, 09:02
2
hsbinfy wrote:
Hi,

I narrowed down to B and C. but finally picked b.

is B wrong just because there wont be any collison but onboard injuries? We aren't concerned about board injuries as of now , only the collisons...right???

Or The argument mentions 3 minutes is suffcient to manuver.

-h

When we strengthen/weaken an argument, we need to strengthen/weaken the conclusion.
Here the conclusion says "If the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane."

Whether 3 mins is enough time to maneuver is none of our concern. We only want know that when the light is off, is the plane at least 3 mins away from every other plane?
(C) tells us that it may not be and hence our conclusion is weakened.

Focus on the conclusion.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 226
Location: India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Mar 2014, 10:42
1
Went with C as its. The best weakener from the choices.
A is talking about air traffic controllers and 1.5 minutes which is irrelevant to the argument.
B is too weak itself to weaken the argument:it has 'in certain cases' and 'may be'.
In D,okay the. Lights don't turn on simultaneously.they might turn on with a very little (negligible) time diff.
In E how is it weakening?It is merely saying that there might be other models having the equipment.So it's good of other models have it and it works.But this isn't weakening the conclusion that 'if red light is off,the plane is necessarily 3 min away from another one.
Only C weakens the conclusion by saying that if a plAne might be parallel and therefore very close to another (less than 3 min close)DC-10 and still the red light won't go on.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 60
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Oct 2014, 07:52
1
Actually the explanation to justify answer choice 'C' is flawed (in my opinion). The answer choice 'C' is incorrectly worded to say parallel..technically speaking parallel means the planes will never collide...so in that case you wouldn't need the detectors at all...if the answer choice would have specifically said side-by-side then ans choice 'C' would have made sense...anyway this is my 2-cents worth...
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Oct 2014, 10:58
2
p2bhokie wrote:
Actually the explanation to justify answer choice 'C' is flawed (in my opinion). The answer choice 'C' is incorrectly worded to say parallel..technically speaking parallel means the planes will never collide...so in that case you wouldn't need the detectors at all...if the answer choice would have specifically said side-by-side then ans choice 'C' would have made sense...anyway this is my 2-cents worth...

Dear p2bhokie,
With all due respect, my friend, you are confusing mathematics with the real world. In mathematics, for example, in geometry, we only use the word "parallel" to denote absolutely strictly parallel; if two lines are even a millionth of a degree off from being parallel, then in geometry they are not parallel.
In the real world, two planes "flying in parallel" mean two planes flying in more or less the same direction, more or less side-by-side. This is a rough, approximate term, not the rigorously precise term we find in geometry. Arguably, it would impossible for planes (or anything in the real world) to be perfectly mathematically parallel. Planes flying "in parallel" may be gradually approaching or receding. Nothing in real life has the same degree of rigor that we find only in the abstract precision of mathematics.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 186
Location: India
Schools: IIMC (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 2.6
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Oct 2014, 03:07
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers. - Thought a near collision was averted by prompt actions of ATC, it would not call into question anti-collision device, since this was a single incidence and we don't have the details of the incidence

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries. - It might have called the device into question, had the sentence mentioned Collision and not injuries. This becomes out of scope

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel. - Aaaahhh... What if the planes are near parallel ? They might collide and the device won't warn. - This could be a good choice

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously. - Even if one of the planes is alerted, the collision can be averted.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device. - This would just mean that only DC-10 planes are collision-safe - Out of scope

Hope this helps
_________________
Give KUDOS if the post helps you...
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 7
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 May 2015, 23:29
mikemcgarry Hey mike what's wrong with D. We have to weaken the conclusion which says If red light is off our plane has more than 3 mins of distance with other plane. But if lights of plane on at different time then the plane whose light on later will have less than 3 mins. thus it will weaken conclusion too.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 May 2015, 10:06
1
mikemcgarry Hey mike what's wrong with D. We have to weaken the conclusion which says If red light is off our plane has more than 3 mins of distance with other plane. But if lights of plane on at different time then the plane whose light on later will have less than 3 mins. thus it will weaken conclusion too.

I'm happy to respond.

Here's the prompt again. Notice the highlights.
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

Now, here's (D).
(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

Remember, GMAT CR, we have to assume that premises given in the prompt are true. Notice, the prompt doesn't say that the lights go on when the two planes are EXACTLY three minutes away. No, instead, the lights go on when the planes are "slightly more" than 3 minutes away. What does this mean?
Suppose Planes X & Y are approaching each other. When the planes are 3:05 away from each other, the red light goes on in Plane X. When the planes are 3:02 away from each other, the red light goes on in Plane Y. Thus:
(a) in both planes, the light goes on slightly before 3 minutes away
(b) the lights do not turn on simultaneously in the two aircrafts
(c) by the time the two planes are exactly 3 minutes apart, both have the red light on.
Thus, the conclusion is not threatened at all by answer choice (D), as long as we don't change any of the premises.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Current Student
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 152
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Aug 2016, 09:39
DC 10: Spl. A.C.D. -> ↓coll (+)
A.C.D. = alert 3 mins. (+)
3 mins. enuf (+)
lght off = >3 mins away (c) [faulty?]

A - talks what happened when <3mins. Doesn't weaken the concl.
B - talks about 3 mins not enuf. may be faulty? Keep this one in
C - So, light off does nt necessarily mean planes> 3 mins away (keep it for now)
D & E - No relevance to argument

B -> but enuf to avoid collision. So A.C.D. do avoid coll + option does not attack light off.
Ans C
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 216
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jan 2018, 10:53
I use POE method. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously. -> OFS

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9246
Location: Pune, India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Jan 2018, 02:01
aaba wrote:
I use POE method. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously. -> OFS

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

When we strengthen/weaken an argument, we need to strengthen/weaken the conclusion.
Here the conclusion says "If the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane."

We have to weaken it. That is, we have to establish that red light could be off and still there could be another plane less than three mins flying time away from this plane.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
If anti collision device ignores planes flying parallel, the light could be off but there could be a plane flying parallel to this one which could be less than 3 mins flying time away. It is not necessary that DC-10 is more than 3 mins flying time from any plane. Hence our conclusion is weakened.

Focus on the conclusion.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Jul 2018, 18:42

Official Explanation

The credited answer is (C). Some planes crash because they are oncoming, going in opposite directions headed toward each other, but sometimes planes going in more or less the same direction just drift too close and crash. If the anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, then it wouldn't prevent crashes of this latter kind. Yes, the anti-collision device would help prevent some categories of crashes, but it still would be possible for two planes, flying more or less parallel, to come dangerously close to one another without the device giving its warning. This points out a significant hole in the aviation analyst's argument.

We don't know what kind of planes were involved here, but only the DC-10's have the anti-collision device, so this scenario could have involved planes that didn't have the device at all. If planes without the device almost crash, that's certainly no reflection on how effective the device is. There is too much uncertainty in this answer. Choice (A) is incorrect.

It's true that onboard injuries would be undesirable, but they're better than a mid-air plane crash! The argument is simply about preventing a mid-air plane crash --- it makes no specific promises about the health and well-being of the passengers. Choice (B) is incorrect.

As long as the anti-collision devices turn on with more than 3 minutes warning for each plane, it doesn't matter whether they turn on at exactly the same time, or are separated by a few seconds. This simply doesn't matter at all. Choice (D) is incorrect.

If other airlines have had this anti-collision device installed, then if anything, that would seem to be a vote of confidence for it, an indication that other companies trust the device and believe that it's effective. This is definitely not a weakener, and could be construed as a mild strengthener. Choice (E) is incorrect.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2018
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GRE 1: Q162 V149
GPA: 3.6
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Oct 2018, 05:52
(A) We don't know what kind of planes were involved here, but only the DC-10's have the anti-collision device, so this scenario could have involved planes that didn't have the device at all. If planes without the device almost crash, that's certainly no reflection on how effective the device is. There is too much uncertainty in this answer. Choice (A) is incorrect.

(B) It's true that onboard injuries would be undesirable, but they're better than a mid-air plane crash! The argument is simply about preventing a mid-air plane crash --- it makes no specific promises about the health and well-being of the passengers. Choice (B) is incorrect.

(C) Some planes crash because they are oncoming, going in opposite directions headed toward each other, but sometimes planes going in more or less the same direction just drift too close and crash. If the anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, then it wouldn't prevent crashes of this latter kind. Yes, the anti-collision device would help prevent some categories of crashes, but it still would be possible for two planes, flying more or less parallel, to come dangerously close to one another without the device giving its warning. This points out a significant hole in the aviation analyst's argument. Hence, Choice C is correct

(D) As long as the anti-collision devices turn on with more than 3 minutes warning for each plane, it doesn't matter whether they turn on at exactly the same time, or are separated by a few seconds. This simply doesn't matter at all. Choice (D) is incorrect.

(E) If other airlines have had this anti-collision device installed, then if anything, that would seem to be a vote of confidence for it, an indication that other companies trust the device and believe that it's effective. This is definitely not a weakener and could be construed as a mild strengthener. Choice (E) is incorrect.
_________________
Appreciate any KUDOS given !

MY MBA RESOURCES:

4000 Official Verbal Question | 3700 Official quant questions

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 407
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jan 2019, 17:03
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

I like such pure logic auestions.
It is obvious that after reading a passage we have to look for the options, where or this device does not work properly (no red light when necessary), or this device has some nuances like red light goes of, when planes passed each othe, for example, or option C in this case
Intern
Joined: 21 Jan 2019
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro  [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Feb 2019, 00:39
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

Facts:
a. To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device.
b. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision.
c. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision.

Conclusion -
Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

So, we should look out for an option that would tell us that 3-minutes is not sufficient time to prevent collision or which would undermine the basic definition of "collision".

Option analysis:
(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.
It does not say whether 3-minutes is an ample time or not.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
Okay hold on

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.
even if one turns on the collision can be averted. does not fit our weakening definition

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.
It rather strengthens.
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro   [#permalink] 16 Feb 2019, 00:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by