CR when an airplane is taken out of sevice for maintenance

[soundok]

When an airplane is taken out of service for maintenance, it is often repainted as well, and during the repainting no other maintenance work can be done on the plane. In order to reduce maintenance time, airline officials are considering using a new nontoxic plastic film instead of paint. The film takes just as long to apply as paint does, but many other maintenance tasks can be carried out at the same time.

Which of the following, if true, is further evidence that using the film will help the airline officials achieve their goal?

(A) Unlike paint, the film gives a milky tone to certain colors.
(B) At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can.
(C) The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training.
(D) The metal exteriors of airplanes have to be protected from high temperatures and caustic chemicals such as exhaust gases.
(E) Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet, the film remains securely attached.

Ans: B

Their goal is "reduce maintenance time", but I think removing film occured at the end of useful life is not relative to their goal.

Could you explain it?

[RonPurewal]

When an airplane is taken out of service for maintenance, it is often repainted as well, and during the repainting no other maintenance work can be done on the plane. In order to reduce maintenance time, airline officials are considering using a new nontoxic plastic film instead of paint. The film takes just as long to apply as paint does, but many other maintenance tasks can be carried out at the same time.

Which of the following, if true, is further evidence that using the film will help the airline officials achieve their goal?

(A) Unlike paint, the film gives a milky tone to certain colors.
(B) At the end of its useful life, the film can be removed much more quickly than paint can.
(C) The film can be applied only by technicians who have received special training.
(D) The metal exteriors of airplanes have to be protected from high temperatures and caustic chemicals such as exhaust gases.
(E) Even at speeds considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet, the film remains securely attached.

Ans: B

Their goal is "reduce maintenance time", but I think removing film occured at the end of useful life is not relative to their goal.

Could you explain it?

if we take it for granted that the processes of painting the plane and applying the film are parallel - i.e., both of them need to be removed "at the end of their useful life" - then this choice represents an additional cost savings, because, prior to applying a new coat, they'll be able to strip off the film faster than they'll be able to strip off the paint.

i see your point, though; this is a potentially dangerous assumption.
still, the other four choices clearly have NOTHING to do with time efficiency and faster maintenance. choice (b) is the only one that's even tangentially related to that idea, so it's the winner almost by default.

remember, the question is not "which one of these is SOLID evidence?" it's just "which one is further evidence?"
therefore, frustratingly enough, if one choice is weak evidence, but all four of the other choices are clearly irrelevant, then the "weak evidence" choice wins.

might i be so rude as to ask which of the other answer choices you thought could have been possible?

[soundok]

I chose D. I think "protecting exteriors of airplanes" sounds relative to "reducing maintanence time". And I also made an assumption that plastic film protects exteriors of airplans, even though I still uncomfortable about "have to be protected".

[RonPurewal]

I chose D. I think "protecting exteriors of airplanes" sounds relative to "reducing maintanence time". And I also made an assumption that plastic film protects exteriors of airplans, even though I still uncomfortable about "have to be protected".

you're missing the issue here, though.
the issue is not just protecting the exterior of the planes per se. rather, the issue is protecting the exterior of the planes better than paint does.

number one, this statement has nothing to do directly with maintenance time. it just doesn't; you have to make big assumptions to reach any connection between those two concepts.
number two, and even more importantly - even if there's a connection between protecting the planes' exterior and reducing maintenance time, this statement still doesn't have anything to do with the comparative maintenance time between the plastic and the paint. (this is the sole thesis of the argument: that the plastic will lead to less maintenance time than will the paint.) therefore, this statement is irrelevant no matter what assumptions you make.

[harsh.poddar]

I got confused with the answer choice E . This choice states that the film is securely attached even at high speeds . Doesn't this choice also strengthens the argument . If the film were to keep on getting removed at high speeds this would result in repeated number of times the airplane is taken out for maintenance . This would ultimately mean that it is taking more time than the paint . Please give your inputs . Why is this choice wrong ? What is to be seen when addressing such choices ?

[RonPurewal]

I got confused with the answer choice E . This choice states that the film is securely attached even at high speeds . Doesn't this choice also strengthens the argument . If the film were to keep on getting removed at high speeds this would result in repeated number of times the airplane is taken out for maintenance . This would ultimately mean that it is taking more time than the paint . Please give your inputs . Why is this choice wrong ? What is to be seen when addressing such choices ?

the argument is that the plastic stuff will save time compared to paint.
you are saying that, if the plastic stuff fell off, it would take more time; that's irrelevant.

to strengthen the argument, you actually need evidence that the plastic will save time relative to the paint.
(b) does this -- it says that time will be saved during removal.
(e) doesn't; it just says that the film won't come off at high speeds. since paint obviously won't come off at high speeds either, this choice just gives a way in which the plastic and the paint are equivalent; it doesn't show that the plastic saves time.

[KaushikR796]

Ron,

First things first - Thanks for all your comments on various questions.

While i concede that disputing official answers is a waste of time - Something you have iterated time and again on the forum, I have the following point to make.

With respect to Option E- If Plastic paint does not come off does not it mean that we donot need to waste time in painting. All that time can go for other maintenance activities instead - And Maintenance time is reduced.
Considering the argument talks about normal speed of plane, there could be a potential case (at higher speeds) when the oil paint is durable but the normal paint. And this would mean time being saved during maintenance.

[RonPurewal]

no matter how fast a plane might fly, the paint will not suddenly come off in mid-flight. this is just common knowledge.

common knowledge can always be assumed.

[LeH174]

Hi Ron,
I understand why B is correct. but i have some problems about my reason in choice E. Please help me
-Goal is to reduce maintenance time.
-Time to apply film and pain is the same.
- BUT with film, other tasks can be done simultaneously.
After reading stimulus, my pre-thinking is that the answer choice may eliminate some cases which cost film more time to maintenance.
Therefore, in choice E, i think that with abnormal speed, film still remains. if it does not, it will add more time for maintenance.
What wrong with my reasoning

[PhuongD794]

Hi LeH174 ,

Let me add my 2 cents. Hope this helps

I think the goal you identified is not accurate. In my opinion, the stimulus is evaluating whether film is more time-efficient than paint. Remember that, because "during the repainting no other maintenance work can be done on the plane", maintenance already takes less time for a filmed plane than for a painted plane. Therefore, stated goal should be "to crease the gap between maintenance time of filming and that of painting".

According to choice (E), even in considerably high speed, maintenance time for filmed plane does not increase. (Just imagine, maintenance time of film is 5 hours, while that of paint is 7 hours. Even in considerably high speed, maintenance time of film remains 5 hours). But be careful, this option says nothing about paint. That's why we cannot assume that paint will come off if planes fly too fast, thus adding more time for maintenance. What if the paint will not be affected even in high speed? Well, then maintenance time for painted plane remains 7 hours. That means no change in maintenance-time gap between film and plane. In other words, choice (E) add no value in strengthening the decision to replace paint with film.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Well done, PhuongD794, that's good analysis. You're right that the airline officials' goal is to reduce maintenance time by using film instead of paint and that we have to consider whether the answers strengthen this.

LeH174, I understand your point: if the film comes off at high speeds, then the plane will have to undergo more maintenance. However, there are lots of other things to consider. Will the plane ever fly at speeds 'considerably higher than the normal speed of a passenger jet'? What about the paint - will that be damaged at high speeds too? There are simply too many extra unanswered questions to consider with E. Although it's good to use your imagination, be careful of following a long line of logic with "Maybe this will happen, so perhaps this will happen, etc..".