When Three Everett-Owned Lightning-built Airplanes Crashed in the Same Month

Sayantani Barman logo

bySayantani Barman Experta en el extranjero

Question: When three Everett-owned Lightning-built airplanes crashed 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 an accident, users become reluctant to buy that product.

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.
(B) The Lightning-built airplanes crashed due to pilot error, but because of the excellent quality of the planes there were many survivors.
(C) The Federal Aviation Association issued new guidelines for airlines in order to standardise safety requirements governing preflight inspections.
(D) Consumer advocates pressured two major airlines into purchasing safer airplanes so that the public would be safer while flying.
(E) Many Lightning Airplane Company employees had to be replaced because they found jobs in the competition

Answer: B

Explanation:

A GMAT Critical Reasoning section comprises some facts and statements. GMAT critical reasoning tests the reasoning, logical and analytical thinking abilities of the candidate. The candidate has to deduce the correct option by finding the logically correct argument or by eliminating the irrelevant arguments.

The statement states - When three Everett-owned Lightning-built airplanes crashed 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 an accident, users become reluctant to buy that product.

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

(A) 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 the competition seems to have better track records.

(B) Third element highlights the answer – this brings to light something we didn’t know about before. Sure, there were crashes, but the pilots were the ones that caused them. Moreover, the planes had great features that allowed for multiple survivors.

(C)This option is out of scope – this doesn’t affect the Everett company’s decision. This doesn’t support the reason why this company bought more of these planes, which doesn't seem like a good idea.

(D) This option is out of scope – this doesn’t affect the Everett company’s decision. This doesn’t support the reason why this company bought more of these planes, which doesn'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) This option is also out of scope – It is not important what they did. As long as the company’s decision is defensible, that’s all that matters.

Suggested GMAT Verbal Questions

Fees Structure

CategoryState
General15556

In case of any inaccuracy, Notify Us! 

Comments


No Comments To Show