PT2.S2.Q19 - how do the airlines expect to

LowFlyByLowFlyBy Member
edited May 2017 in Logical Reasoning 43 karma

I need some help with this question. I got the right answer but in Blind Review I changed the answer to a wrong choice. The right answer is D. I understand why that is right. The problem I have is trying to determine why A is wrong. Is it just that A doesn't pertain to the argument? I believe the premise to be "It is unrealistic to expect [upgraded training programs with increased classroom hours] to compensate for the pilots' lack of actual flying time". The conclusion is "Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes." The gap would be the relationship from "lack of actual flying time" to "commercial crashes". That gap is filled by D with C being a tempting but incorrect answer choice. I just can't elucidate why A is wrong except that it doesn't address the relationship. I guess what I am trying to say is, it seems to me that answer choice A is an assumption that the stimulus makes. I guess I am assuming when it refers to "Training programs" that could include a training program that increases the pilots actual flying time. In any case, your input would be appreciated.

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules:
https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

3: Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright. Not a good way to take the first few steps down a long road that is your legal career.

Comments

  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10806 karma

    Hey so "A" is talking about training programs which the argument's conclusion says that we should rethink. So A strengthens the training programs, but not the main conclusion which is about actual flying time. That's the main reason, answer choice A is irrelevant.

    I think you are probably thinking that actual flying time is also part of the training for pilots. But that's an assumption you are making that's not stated by the author. The author simply thinks that the current training programs can't compensate for actual flying time. This conclusion in this stimulus is merely a judgment on the speakers part about what he thinks about how this training program is inadequate. That's why answer choice "A" addressing how the training program can help eliminate errors is actually irrelevant to the authors own argument about how training program needs to be rethought.

    I hope that helped.

  • LowFlyByLowFlyBy Member
    43 karma

    @Sami thanks for your explanation of why answer A is incorrect. I see the assumption I made and also I see the irrelevance of the answer choice. Thanks again.

  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10806 karma

    my pleasure <3. I am glad that helped. : )

  • nc______nc______ Alum Member
    42 karma

    On the other hand, I had trouble confidently eliminating (C). Negating answer choice (C) would state: The number of airline crashes will not decrease if pilot training programs focus on increasing actual flying time. I understand why (D) is more correct but am having trouble confidently eliminating (C).

  • SeptLSATSeptLSAT Member
    edited November 2019 42 karma

    I also had trouble eliminating C. This is how I broke it down.

    Context: Pilot error contributes to plane crashes.
    Premise 1: To address plane crashes, airlines have developed training programs.
    Premise 2: These training programs cannot compensate for lack of flying time.
    Conclusion: Airlines should rethink their training programs.

    Gap: What's the connection between training programs and lack of flying time?

    C) States that crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on lack of flight. Problem is that nowhere in the stimulus does it explicitly state or imply a relationship between flight time and decreasing crashes. Rather, the stimulus suggests that the training programs, as they currently are, cannot compensate for lack flight time. In this way, (C) goes too far for what is required of the argument. Also, no information supports the need to focus on lack of flight time; only that the other methods, by themselves, are reason to rethink the training programs. So, too strong of a word choice.

    D) Satisfies the bare minimum that, at the very least, lack of flight time is also a factor in pilot error (in addition to lack of communication, etc). Thus, the airlines should rethink their training programs.

  • WhatslsatWhatslsat Member
    476 karma

    Answer choice A is TOO strong for a NA question.
    A negated= training programs CANNOT eliminate pilot errors. This greatly strengthens the conclusion that they should rethink their training approach.
    We need NA, which is something that is necessary and only necessary, we don't want a premise too strong.

    I picked C for this question.
    C negated = the # of crashes will NOT decrease if training programs focus on increasing actual flying time.

    This would have the effect of weakening the argument when we are trying to help the argument.

    Need to do better job negating answer choices, how they engage with the argument. I got this question wrong because I couldn't eliminate this answer choice.

    D negated= lack of actual flying time is NOT an important contributor to pilot error in crashes.

    If we don't choose this answer choice, negation would destroy the argument that they should increase actual flying time.

Sign In or Register to comment.