Q9 - The number of aircraft

[tzyc]

Is (A) the aswer because it shows analogy (similar situation) to strengthen what the author claims?
I thought...
Even it is similar situation there would/could be different "third" factor, so it cannot say since this occur here, that would occur there as well...did I overthink?
I chose (D) thinking maybe larger plane has more emergency exits, so this could strengthen the effectiveness of emergency exits...
But now I think the number of passenger also increases in larger plane, so the ratio does not change...

[nbayar1212]

Yeah pretty much.

A) gives more support to the idea that that unrestricted emergency exists can potentially reduce the number of fatalities by pointing out a similar situation in which unrestricted exists contributed to a decrease i.e. in theaters.

D) doesn't strengthen the argument because it doesn't give us any information about what happens if we do or don't have unrestricted access to emergency exists. The AC just gives us more info on the injuries side of things but not on the preventative side (which is the side we are trying to strengthen).

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a strengthen question so let's analyze the core, find the flaw, and go from there.

Many fatalities occur because seats restrict access to emergency exits, ultimately impeding escape
→
To reduce total number of fatalities, airlines should be required to remove all seats restricting access

This core seems pretty tight. It is saying that fatalities arise because seats restrict access so removing the seats would reduce total number of fatalities. Seems logical, right? There is a tiny, vague, assumption here that is stating that it is these seats is the sole reason for restricting access. Maybe removing the seats is necessary to reduce total number of fatalities, but not exactly sufficient.

In addition, there is an assumption that removing the seats would cause less of a harm (in terms of a number of fatalities) then leaving them there. Sure, maybe these seats are a big problem. However, what if removing them causes a bigger problem. What if the seats provide extra "padding" for the rest of the passengers and removing them would perhaps save a few people more people but ultimately kill way more people than it would have saved - people that would not have been killed before.

It is not expected to have such intricate thoughts when going through this problem but review is a great place to really flesh out all of these assumptions.

Remember - we need to STRENGTHEN.

(B) So it will require a costly refitting, that sucks. However, does this impact the conclusion? Does it help to prove why removing the seats would do a lot of good? Nope. This is sufficiently out of scope.

(C) Smoke detectors?! We aren't talking about smoke detectors here we are talking about aisles! This, like (B), has no real relevance to the conclusion. It's impact is vague - it's impact really is actually non-existence. Eliminate.

(D) I thought about this one, I thought hard about it. This one is tempting for the same reasons that all incorrect strengthen/weaken answers are - it is in scope! This is much more rare in strengthen/weaken Q types so an answer like (D) may warrant a bit of thought. However, this may actually weaken the conclusion. Why? We assume that taking away seats is going to reduce capacity. According to (D), what happens when we have a lower capacity? The people will suffer more serious injuries. It could mean death - it could not mean death, who knows? Either way, we have reason to believe that this would weaken the conclusion.

(E) Like (B) and (C) this one is so far out from left-field. This has no relevance to the argument whatsoever.

(A) is interesting. It seems out of scope. "Theater fires, what?" Those were my exact thoughts when approaching (A). I wanted to scratch it out and eliminate it so bad. However, one strengthen/weaken types, you got to force yourself to be a little less selective. This is a great example. Why is (A) correct? It is correct because it strengthens...but just barely. However, barely strengthening is still sufficient - this is the hard part about strengthen questions. We are so used to plugging gaps and finding holes that strengthen/weaken seem so weak. They are. But that's okay.

(A) creates an analogy that matches very well to the situation presented in the stimulus. We are talking about requiring aisles to the exits and how this greatly reduced the number of deaths when it came to theater fires. This would all make us think, "hmmm...if it worked for theaters maybe it will work for airplanes too?!"

(A) isn't perfect. Yet being perfect is not required.

[malc.brud]

I chose E, which no one did. But I think it strengthens the argument, because what if everyone dies on impact? Then having better access to exits doesn't matter. However, if we know the seat belts protect passengers in the event of a collision then having greater access to will reduce the total number of fatalities.

FWIW, I didn't eliminate A, but just chose E based on my gut. Any thoughts of why E is wrong?

[WaltGrace1983]

I chose E, which no one did. But I think it strengthens the argument, because what if everyone dies on impact? Then having better access to exits doesn't matter. However, if we know the seat belts protect passengers in the event of a collision then having greater access to will reduce the total number of fatalities.

FWIW, I didn't eliminate A, but just chose E based on my gut. Any thoughts of why E is wrong?

E can be eliminated for two reasons. #1 is that it simply doesn't impact the conclusion. If you are really unsure about whether or not an answer choice impacts the conclusion, put it in between the premise and the conclusion and see what happens. However, even without doing so, what relevance does the function of the seat belts have? It really doesn't have any relevance. Look at this...

Many fatalities occur because seats restrict access to emergency exits, ultimately impeding escape
+
Seat belts function to protect passengers from the force of the collision
→
To reduce total number of fatalities, airlines should be required to remove all seats restricting access

Do you see what I am saying? This really doesn't have relevance. Let me know if you don't understand so I can help explain it further. #2 though is perhaps the more important consideration. You actually are thinking backwards.

But I think it strengthens the argument, because what if everyone dies on impact? Then having better access to exits doesn't matter.

This thinking is more or less okay for a WEAKEN question. However, we want to STRENGTHEN the idea that "airlines should be required to remove all seats restricting access." Your thinking might actually weaken the conclusion by saying that "well restricting access doesn't matter. Who cares? They are all going to die anyway!" Does that help to clear it up?