Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q10 Commercial passenger airplanes can be equipped

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Commercial passenger airplanes can be equipped with a collision-avoidance radar system that provides pilots with information about the proximity of other airplanes.

Conclusion

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.

Evidence (Because)

Commercial passenger airplanes equipped with this system provides information about the proximity of other airplanes and warns pilots to take evasive action when it thinks there could be a possible collision.

Evaluate

The conclusion is making a Comparison claim, that passengers will be safer flying on a plane that has the system than on a plane that doesn't. So we need to consider all senses in which having this radar system on a plane could make it more safe / less safe.

The author is assuming that the plane will be more safe, because she assumes that this system will allow planes to evade collisions that they wouldn't evade if they didn't have the system. So the author has to assume things like

- the warning will be given in time that the pilot still has a chance to make evasive action safely - the pilot (or someone who can notify the pilot) will notice the radar system when it goes off - the pilot will react to these warnings with evasive actions, rather than just ignoring them (especially given that we're told the system frequently gives a warning even when there's no danger around)

This argument resembles those in which we're evaluating a Plan to achieve a Goal. The common issues there are - feasibility (Skill) - incentive / motivation / cooperation (Will) - possible backfire

The Plan is to have this radar system warn us of potential collisions. The Goal is to be safer (to avoid collisions). We have to worry about whether the Plan could feasibly work (will it warn us in time? will we notice its warning?) as well as whether the people involved can be counted on to behave as we're expecting (will pilots be motivated / willing / incentivized to listen to these warnings?).

Lastly, we should consider potential ways the Plan could backfire. How could having this radar system make a plane less safe? Maybe it beeps a lot and that distracts the pilot. Maybe the radar it sends out makes it harder for the pilot to communicate with airports. Maybe the frequent "false alarm" warnings will create some dangerous flying moves.

Goal

It's hard to predict specific answers with a Plan / Goal type comparison. We're looking for an answer that sounds like something that would need to be true for the Plan to have a hope of working, or something that is ruling out an objection to this argument (i.e. ruling out a potential problem with how this device is intended to work).

10.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Passengers feel no safer on

    Out of Scope: how passengers feel

    This argument is only concerned with whether passengers are actually safer. Whether they feel safer or not is immaterial to whether they are.

    3% picked this

  2. Warnings given by a collision-avoidance

    Not Necessary

    The author doesn't need to assume any particular backstory to what causes the phantom warnings. Maybe it's caused by distorted radar signals, maybe birds, maybe cloud cover, who knows. If we negate this and say that the phantom warnings are caused by distorted radar signals, it doesn't hurt the argument at all. We already know the phantom warnings happen. We're curious about the potential dangerous effects of those phantom warnings, not what caused them in the first place.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    The frequency of invalid warnings

    Why this is right

    Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and we see an answer ruling out an idea using language like "not / no", we get very enticed (tons of correct answers are structured that way). If we negate this, does it become an objection? the frequency of invalid warnings will cause pilots routinely to disregard the system's warnings.i Yes, that would definitely weaken. If pilots ignore the system's warnings, then there's no way the system could make the plane safer. In order for it do that, the pilot would have to be paying attention to and reacting to these warnings (and in doing so avoiding accidents that otherwise would have occurred).

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    77% picked this

  4. Commercial passenger airplanes are not

    Out of Scope: noncommercial planes

    If we slow down and negate this "not", we get this: Commercial passenger airplanes are the only planes that can be equipped with this system. Does that weaken the argument? No, because the author can still coherently argue that "passengers are safer on airplanes equipped with this system". So what if those are only commercial planes?

    2% picked this

  5. The greatest safety risk for

    Too Strong; greatest risk

    The author doesn't need to assume that midair collisions is the #1 risk for passengers. Even if it were the #2 biggest risk, doing something to lessen that risk would still make us safer.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free