The argument states that the passengers should leave the plane as soon as possible because of possibility of inhalation of toxic gases and the possibility of their ignition.
If passengers take more time to escape, as in A, they become more susceptible to fire... HTH...
Passengers must exit airplanes swiftly after accidents, since gases released following accidents are toxic to humans and often explode soon after being released. In order to prevent passenger deaths from gas inhalation, safety officials recommend that passengers be provided with smoke hoods that prevent inhalation of the gases. Which of the following, if true, constitutes the strongest reason not to require implementation of the safety officials' recommendation?
(A) Test evacuations showed that putting on the smoke hoods added considerably to the overall time it took passengers to leave the cabin.
(B) Some airlines are unwilling to buy the smoke hoods because they consider them to be prohibitively expensive.
(C) Although the smoke hoods protect passengers from the toxic gases, they can do nothing to prevent the gases from igniting.
(D) Some experienced flyers fail to pay attention to the safety instructions given on every commercial flight before takeoff.
(E) In many airplane accidents, passengers who were able to reach emergency exits were overcome by toxic gases before they could exit the ariplane.
I will go with E , as safety officials recommendation is based on 'inhalation problem ' so any alternate way to subside it will claim for 'no requirement of it'.
What is the problem with E? Could anybody help me to get convinced about option A because , in my understanding , official considered the case of 'inhalation' and not of 'early exit' , hence , to find the strongest reason in contrast of it , I think A is more generalized answer as compared to E .
What is the problem with E? Could anybody help me to get convinced about option A because , in my understanding , official considered the case of 'inhalation' and not of 'early exit' , hence , to find the strongest reason in contrast of it , I think A is more generalized answer as compared to E .
As rightly pointed out before, E strengthens the official's recommendation. If people die of inhalation before they can exit, that's all the more reason to wear the smoke hoods.
Answer should be A - if it takes more time to wear the smoke hoods, then it increases chances of passengers getting caught in the explosion.
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
I fell in the same trap as you did..... wrong answer..!!!!
ps25 Says
Option D...
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
A. Actually supports. B. Kind of supports C. Out of scope D. Most US cities .. who cares? Even if it were Middletown, not all arrest result in conviction but some do. So, thats still increased caseload. E. More office less crime. So, less caseload -- Weakens
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
I'll go with (D) although (E) is also close but D seems closer:p
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a citys police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, th.
(E) Middletowns ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime. :)
I would also go with E .... because it nullifies the basic assumption made in the reasoning that increased no. of officers would tend to generate more arrests/cases wherein Option E says that it would have a opposite affect and thus crime would reduce....
One quick doubt on a question I encountered in the critical reasoning bible :-
The solidity of bridge piers built on pilings depends largely on how deep the pilings are driven. Prior to 1700, pilings were driven to refusal, that is, to the point at which they refused to go any deeper. In a 1588 inquiry into the solidity of piers for Venices Rialto Bridge, it was determined that the bridges builder, Antonio Da Ponte, had met the contemporary standard for refusal: he had caused the pilings to be driven until additional penetration into the ground was no greater than two inches after twenty-four hammer blows.
Which one of the following can properly be inferred from the passage?
A. The Rialto Bridge was built on unsafe pilings. B. The standard of refusal was not sufficient to ensure the safety of a bridge. C. Da Pontes standard of refusal was less strict than that of other bridge builders of his day. D. After 1588, no bridges were built on pilings that were driven to the point of refusal. E. It is possible that the pilings of the Rialto Bridge could have been driven deeper even after the standard of refusal had been met.
In this question the answer in the CR bible has been mentioned as E. And I got the answer as C. See my justification is that answer 'E' has a 'it is possible' which is something like may or may not be inferred from the passage. But choice C clearly states because the standard said that once two inches per 24 hammer blows is reached it stops. That is clearly less strict than no movement at all as pilings before 1700 were used. So it is basically a clear answer versus a maybe answer
Please guide me where I am going wrong in the understanding.. Thanks. 😃
In this question the answer in the CR bible has been mentioned as E. And I got the answer as C. See my justification is that answer 'E' has a 'it is possible' which is something like may or may not be inferred from the passage. But choice C clearly states because the standard said that once two inches per 24 hammer blows is reached it stops. That is clearly less strict than no movement at all as pilings before 1700 were used. So it is basically a clear answer versus a maybe answer
Please guide me where I am going wrong in the understanding.. Thanks. :)
It is given in the passage that "De Ponte had met met the contemporary standard for refusal". So choice C which says that De Ponte's standard was less strict is ruled out. About E, it states that "It is possible" this means that the pilings could have gone more than 2 inches after repeated blows....the passage does not say that the pilings will not go any further, so choice E which maintains the chance that the pilings could have gone deeper is correct.
If anything, there should be some consideration to B. If there is a chance that the pilings can go deeper then the bridge may not be safe. But again, there is nothing in the passage that says that the standard for refusal was not sufficient. A and D are irrelevant 😃
... wrong answer..!!!!
