Q10 - The number of aircraft

[kimjy89]

I just have no idea how to approach this question! Help please!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Glad to help.

The question asks us to find an answer choice that improves the prospects of achieving the stated objective of reducing fatalities.

We know that the emergency rows are blocked, and so the argument advocates that airlines remove the seats that block the emergency exits. That makes sense. But we're asked to find an additional measure that we could require of the airlines to help achieve the stated objective.

Well, we also know from the stimulus that the number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights. In other words, the increased number of flights is causing an increased risk of collisions. Well if airlines could increase the number of flights in order to compensate for the diminished number of seats in the airplane that would result from following the measure advocated in the argument, then the risk of aircraft collisions on the ground would go even higher.

So the additional measure we could take is to require that airlines don't increase the number of flights even more - expressed in answer choice (B).

(A) might be an additional measure but it won't improve the chances of achieving the stated objective. The emergency exits would already be clear if we followed the measure advocated in the stimulus.
(C) is a convenience for the passengers but does not represent a measure that would affect the stated objective.
(D) is irrelevant. The argument is not about conspicuousness of measures to provide security.
(E) is irrelevant. This answer choice does not affect the safety of airplanes, nor the risk of aircraft collisions on the ground.

Let me know if you still need help with this one, but the fundamental goal is to provide an additional step to require of the airlines that would help achieve the stated objective.

[geverett]

Just saw this. Answer choice A got me, but I see how answer choice A would be redundant if the requirement is already that they must remove seats that impede access to the emergency exits. thanks matt.

[guolan27]

What category does this question fall under? Is it a strengthen/support question?

[cehammock]

But the specific wording in the argument is to reduce *fatalities* not *accidents*. The prompt says that the fatalities aren't caused by collisions. Therefore, shouldn't an AC that deals with collisions rather than fatalities be out of the scope?

[Slymobius]

cehammock,

If we prevent the collisions we prevent the fatalities. A collision inadvertently causes fatalities, by way of the impediments/seats to the emergency exits. While collisions aren't directly the cause of the fatalities, they are linked and loosely correlated. If airlines increase the number of flights then the number of collisions also increases. (B) Not allowing airlines to increase the amount of flights (to offset the lost seats due to the clearing of the emergency exits) would "improve the prospects" of reducing fatalities.

guolan27,

It's a Most Strongly Supported question.

[WaltGrace1983]

I liked Slymobius's insight but I'll add a bit more too!

But the specific wording in the argument is to reduce *fatalities* not *accidents*. The prompt says that the fatalities aren't caused by collisions. Therefore, shouldn't an AC that deals with collisions rather than fatalities be out of the scope?

You are absolutely right. We are specifically talking about reducing fatalities. However, what we must understand is that this argument is actually two-pronged in a way. What I mean is that we know that (1) "the number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights" and (2) "Many of the fatalities...are caused by...impeded escape."

So there are essentially two causes of the fatalities: the "main" cause, which is the actual collision itself, and the "secondary cause," which is the impeded exits. The proposal in the argument takes care of the "secondary cause" by stating that the exits will no longer be impeded. However, what about the actual collisions themselves? All we know is that many people (not "most" or "all") are killed by the impeded exits. What about the rest of the people? They are presumably killed by the collision itself so we want to add something that would protect against the collision itself. (B) does this.

The reason why I call the collision the "main cause" is purely subjective. I would just assume that MANY MORE people die from the collision than the impeded exits. This assumption is strengthened a tad by the fact that the stimulus talks about "many" people dying from the impeded exit rather than "all" or "most."

What category does this question fall under? Is it a strengthen/support question?

I would actually respectfully disagree with Slymobius here. I think this is a strengthen question because we are suppose to STRENGTHEN (improve the prospects of) a stated objective.

[keane.xavier]

If I may, I'd like to respectfully add to WaltGrace's explanation or, at the very least, offer an additional way of explaining why (B) would be the correct answer. Here's how I approached this question:

We’re being asked to select a proposal that, if implemented in addition to the author’s proposal, would improve the prospects for achieving reduced fatalities.

While many of the fatalities in these ground collisions are caused by airplane seats blocking emergency exits, this doesn’t mean that all of the fatalities are caused by this flaw in cabin design. The author’s second premise doesn’t preclude fatalities occurring from the collision itself; some fatalities may very well be due to the collision—as we’re only told many fatalities don’t result from the collision but rather the cabin design—though we don’t know exactly how many fatalities result from the collision itself.

Thus, to achieve a reduction in fatalities, we may also, in addition to reducing the number of seats impeding escape, reduce the number of flights operated by airlines, which would reduce the number of deaths resultant from the collision itself. If implemented with the author’s proposal to remove the number of seats blocking emergency exits, this would further reduce the amount of fatalities that result from ground collisions.

B. While I originally wanted an answer choice that would reduce the number of flights, this answer choice accomplishes something similar. In response to the removal of seats blocking emergency exits, the airlines could simply book more flights. More flights would result in more collisions, and because there is a certain amount of fatalities (we don't know exactly how many) resulting from the collision itself, this would result in more fatalities.

However, we want to reduce those fatalities, so preventing airlines from further increasing the number of flights would hold the number of flights, the number of collisions, and the resultant fatalities from those collisions constant while reducing the number of fatalities from the seats blocking emergency exits. Thus, together, these policies would result in a net decrease in the amount of fatalities resulting from ground collisions. This is our correct answer choice.