When three Everett-owned Lightning-built airplanes crashes in the same

Yeah - you are heading down an unnecessary path. The argument wants to know why the company is making a good decision by purchasing the same planes that crashed in the last year. The focus in on the planes. The correct answer suggests that the planes are worth purchasing again because the plane wasn't at fault and in fact the plane was responsible for protecting the lives of the passengers. Stay focused on the key elements of the arguments - it's easy to get sidetracked.

KW

When three Everett-owned Lightning-built airplanes crashes in the same month, the Everett company ordered three new Lightning-built airplanes as replacements. This decision surprised many in the airline industry because, ordinarily when a product is involved in accidents, users become reluctant to buy that product.

Type - Strengthen
Boil it down - Even though 3 of Lightning airplanes crashed in last month , Everett ordered three new ones as replacements
Pre-Thinking - What if the crash was not due to Faulty airplane design but some other reason

Which of the following, if true, provides the best indication that the Everett company’s decision was logically well supported?
(A) Although during the previous year only one Lightning-built airplane crashed, competing manufacturers had a perfect safety record. Incorrect
(B) The Lightning-built airplanes crashed due to pilot error, but because of the excellent quality of the planes there were many survivors. Strengthens - Alternate cause of crash and survivors
(C) The Federal Aviation Association issued new guidelines for airlines in order to standardize safety requirements governing preflight inspections. Irrelevant
(D) Consumer advocates pressured two major airlines into purchasing safer airplanes so that the public would be safer while flying. Irrelevant
(E) Many Lightning Airplane Company employees had to be replaced because they found jobs with the competition. Irrelevant

Answer B

B Was appealing to me at first, but when I saw at the end "many survivors", immediately marked it as a non-answer because it indicated that there were deaths. If it had stated that the planes kept their passengers safer than other planes planes I think it would've been clearer...This drove to me choose the incorrect answer D because nothing remotely looked close to a reason to purchase planes other than being forced to via consumer review. Moving forward, if presented with a similar situation, is the assumption of "minimizing death" to passengers an assumption we can make on this exam? It just seems like a bit of a reach to assume that would make as a reason to buy. Thanks in advance.

Pre-thinking: For the company E to go back to L, there needs to be solid reasoning that overrides the plane crashes. It could be that the plane crashed due to some other reason and not because of the build of the planes. There could be a few other explanations such as L being the safest option available amongst plane building competitors of E being in a contract with L which prohibits E to buy planes from any other competitors irrespective of crashes. But these are weak possibilities. However, it is good to think of all possible explanations (especially while practising) so that your mind is prepared.

B fits our pre-thinking, hence is correct

Conclusion: the Everett company ordered three new Lightning-built airplanes as replacements [surprising many in the airline industry]
Prethink: what if there were upgrades since then? What if it wasn’t the plane’s fault?
Which of the following, if true, provides the best indication that the Everett company’s decision was logically well supported?

(A) Although during the previous year only one Lightning-built airplane crashed, competing manufacturers had a perfect safety record.
Opposite – this would show more the reason why these planes don’t seem the best idea to buy. Not only was there a crash last year with this plane but also is competition that seems to have better track records.

(B) The Lightning-built airplanes crashed due to pilot error, but because of the excellent quality of the planes there were many survivors.
Third element highlight answer – this brings to light something we didn’t know about before. Sure, there were crashes, but the pilots were the ones that caused it. Moreover, the planes had great features that allowed for multiple survivors.

(C) The Federal Aviation Association issued new guidelines for airlines in order to standardize safety requirements governing preflight inspections.
Out of scope – this doesn’t affect the Everett company’s decision. This doesn’t support the reason as to why this company bought more of these planes that don’t seem like a good idea.

(D) Consumer advocates pressured two major airlines into purchasing safer airplanes so that the public would be safer while flying.
Out of scope – this doesn’t affect the Everett company’s decision. This doesn’t support the reason as to why this company bought more of these planes that don’t seem like a good idea. Who cares what they did for these two major airlines. Is it Everett? Even if it was, it doesn’t impact anything.

(E) Many Lightning Airplane Company employees had to be replaced because they found jobs with the competition.
Out of scope – we don’t care what they did. As long as the company’s decision is defensible, that’s all the matters.

planes built by company X crashed
company Y still placed orders for planes from company X

Strengthen company Y's decision. Looking for something that says company X planes were indeed good. Option B talks about how good the quality of the planes made by X is.

IMO B

There is only one clear answer. It's a classical cause and effect argument.

(B) The Lightning-built airplanes crashed due to pilot error, but because of the excellent quality of the planes there were many survivors. CORRECT

Upon reading the passage, one might come to the conclusion that the industry's decision is flawed. However, the implicit reasoning that one uses to come to that conclusion assumes that the issue was due to the planes themselves and not some other factor. B makes it clear that the cause of the crashes weren't due to the planes, but the pilot's errors.

The correct answer - B

Let us solve this question, step by step.

Argument Analysis
- 3 planes, owned by Everett and Lightning built, crashed in the same month
- Everett still ordered 3 planes of the same type (Lightning built) as replacement
- This decision was a suprise, because typically, when a product (e.g. lightning) is involved in accidents, users become reluctant to buy the product. Whereas here, Everett ordered 3 more of the same as replacements

Question
Which of the following, if true, provides the best indication that the Everett company’s decision was logically well supported?

So, we need to strengthen the notion that Everett's decision was logically well supported

Conclusion to strengthen
Everett's decision to order for 3 Lightning planes (despite 3 planes of the same type crashing in a single month) is logical

Prethinking
When would this decision still be logical? If we knew for a fact that the 3 plane crashes did not happen due to a product quality issue but due to some other issue(s)? i.e. what if the issue was say, pilot error, or airline traffic controller (ATC) error, rather than any issue with the lightning built planes? Then the lightning built planes cannot be blamed for the clashes. Then, it is perfectly logical to purchase the same type of planes.

So a valid strengthener would be a statement which indicates that the 3 plane crashes were not in anyway caused by the lightning built planes.
Another strengthener would be a statement that went on to say that not just did the type of plane (lightning built) not have anything to do with it, it was thanks to the high quality of these planes that the accidents did not cause too much damage (say deaths/injuries). Then, ordering more lightning built planes would be the most logical decision!

Option Choice Analysis

(A) Although during the previous year only one Lightning-built airplane crashed, competing manufacturers had a perfect safety record.
Weakener rather than strengthener. If this is true, the competing manufacturers have a better record than Lightning - it would make more sense to order from any of these competitors instead

(B) The Lightning-built airplanes crashed due to pilot error, but because of the excellent quality of the planes there were many survivors.
In line with our prethinking. Correct. Not just that the Lightning built planes were not the cause of the accident, the planes were of such superior quality that despite the accident, there were many survivors. Which means the decision to stick to Lightning-built airplanes was perfectly logical

(C) The Federal Aviation Association issued new guidelines for airlines in order to standardize safety requirements governing preflight inspections.
Irrelevant to the argument. This does not tell us anything about Everett's decision and why it was logical/not logical

(D) Consumer advocates pressured two major airlines into purchasing safer airplanes so that the public would be safer while flying.
Irrelevant to the argument. This does not tell us anything about Everett's decision and why it was logical/not logical

(E) Many Lightning Airplane Company employees had to be replaced because they found jobs with the competition.
This option is trying to indicate that Lightning as a company may be struggling to hold onto its talent. But it does not necessarily mean that Lightning products are not of good quality. So, there is no tangible impact of this option on the argument. Even if it indicates poor quality at some level, it would be a weakener rather than a strengthener. In reality, this option choice is irrelevant to the argument we are trying to strengthen.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Harsha

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.