PT103.S2.Q10 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The argument concludes that passengers are safer on airplanes with a collision-evasion system equipped, even though the system frequently warns pilots of phantom airplanes. This is supported by the premise that the system warns pilots to evade possible collisions.

The argument assumes that the phantom warnings don’t create more danger than the system prevents. For example, that pilots don’t take dangerous evasion maneuvers in response to phantom warnings.

It also assumes that pilots actually respond to the system’s warnings frequently enough to avoid possible collisions. Otherwise, the system’s presence wouldn’t make much difference to safety at all.

Whether or not passengers feel safer isn’t important to determining whether or not they are safer—in fact, it’s not relevant at all.

The possible cause of phantom airplane warnings doesn’t make any difference to the argument, so can’t be necessary.

For the argument to make sense, pilots have to actually act on the system’s warnings—otherwise the system would make no difference. If we negated this, meaning pilots just ignored the warnings, that would leave the conclusion unsupported.

Whether or not the system can be equipped on other types of planes is irrelevant to whether it makes commercial air passengers safer.

The argument just claims that passengers are safer with the system than without it. Whether that means they’re a lot safer or a little safer doesn’t really matter, so this isn’t a necessary assumption.

PrepTest 103 - Section 2 - Question 10

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action