#10 - Commercial passenger airplanes can be equipped with a collision-avoidance radar system that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—Cause and Effect. The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Esquire123]

Why is E incorrect?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Esquire123!

To address why answer choice (E) is incorrect, let's start with the conclusion and question type. The conclusion is contained in the second sentence: "passengers are safer on airplanes equipped with the system than on comparable airplanes not so equipped, even though the system frequently warns pilots to evade phantom airplanes." And we're dealing with an assumption, so something that is necessary in order for this conclusion to follow from the premises.

The Assumption Negation technique can help one determine whether an answer choice is an assumption required by the stimulus. That technique involves negating the answer choice and then plugging the result into the stimulus; if the argument falls apart, then that answer choice is a required assumption.

The correct answer choice, (C), states, "The frequency of invalid warnings will not cause pilots routinely to disregard the system's warnings." A rewording that negates this could be: "The frequency of invalid warnings [will] cause pilots routinely to disregard the system's warnings." If this were true, the argument would fall apart. The argument is that a given system on aircraft makes people on planes with the system safer. The negation of answer choice (C) is saying that pilots might routinely disregard the system. If that's the case, then it doesn't follow that people will be safer on planes with the system (because pilots are routinely not using it for its safety function of collision avoidance).

If we negate (E), by contrast, the argument doesn't fall apart. Answer choice (E) states, "The greatest safety risk for passengers traveling on commercial passenger airplanes is that of a midair collision." This could be reworded as, "The greatest safety risk for passengers traveling on commercial passenger airplanes is [not] that of a midair collision." This negation doesn't really get to the safety function of the system. Even if there were some other, even greater safety risk besides collision, it's still possible that passengers are safer on planes with the mentioned systems in one respect (collision avoidance) because of those systems.

[victoria1234]

why is (A) incorrect?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi victoria,

Answer A discusses whether passengers feel safer on planes with the anti-collision device rather than whether the passengers are in fact safer, which is the focus of the argument. We do not know one way or the other how passengers feel about the safety of the devices. They may or may not even be aware of their existence. And how people feel about a situation may not reflect the actual reality of that situation. For example, statistically, commercial flying is safer than driving, but doesn't feel that way to many people.

If you negate Answer A (passengers do feel safer), that does not hurt the argument. Perhaps they feel safer because they are in fact safer, much like I feel safer when I put my seat belt on.

[attorneyatpaw]

Why is B incorrect? If radar signals are distorted, doesn't that mean the system doesn't work?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Attorneyatpaw!

Let's break down our stimulus:

P1: Passenger airplanes can be equipped with a collision-avoidance radar system that alerts pilots to the proximity of other airplanes.
P2: This radar system will warn pilots to take evasive action when there is risk of a potential collision.
P3: There are frequent warnings of phantom airplanes that are not actually there, or causing any risk of collision.
C: Passengers are safer on airplanes with these radar systems than on comparable planes without them.

What we need to do here is find the connection between phantom airplane warnings, and the relative safety of the passengers. To pre-phrase, we need our answer choice to establish for us that these phantom radar warnings don't detract from or counteract the otherwise obvious safety boost provided by the collision-prevention software.

Answer Choice C works because it tells us that even though there are frequent invalid warnings, the pilots are not more likely to disregard these warnings, thereby nullifying any positive impact this radar system would have on preventing collisions. It is established here that even though there are frequent phantom airplane warnings, the pilots are still diligent in heeding these warnings, thereby making their passengers more safe, because they will take evasive action when advised in the event that there is a real risk of collision.

Answer Choice B establishes that the phantom airplane warnings are not caused by distorted radar signals. We don't have any context for what a distorted radar signal means or could indicate. It could be a bird that the radar misinterprets as a plane, it could mean that the radar incorrectly indicates that a nearby plane is closer than it actually is, and thus falsely warn of a potential collision-risk. We just don't know. Even if the warnings were caused by distorted radar signals, that doesn't tell us anything about the relative safety of our passengers in this case, because we don't know what the consequences of distorted radar signals would actually be. Either way, it doesn't effectively allow us to establish our conclusion.

I hope this helps!