Logical Reasoning

PT9 · S2 · Q9 The number of aircraft collisions

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

The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines.

Conclusion (therefore)

The airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits in order to reduce the total number of fatalities resulting annually from aircraft collisions.

Evidence

The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of a substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines.

Many fatalities occurring in such collisions are caused by an inherent design flaw in most aircraft, where seats restrict access to emergency exits and impede escape.

Evaluate

This argument presents a Plan/Goal scenario:

Goal: Reduce the total number of fatalities from aircraft collisions.

Plan: Require removal of all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.

To evaluate this Plan/Goal scenario, we should think about whether removing those seats would achieve the goal of reducing fatalities. In this context, we need evidence that the restriction of access to emergency exits significantly contributes to fatalities.

We want to know that the plan is feasible, that people would cooperate with it, that it wouldn't backfire and have some unintended consequence that undermines or goal, or anything else that would help us believe more that this plan will achieve this goal.

Goal

Let's find an answer that helps us argue that removing these seats would reduce the total number of fatalities.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the proposal?

Correct
The number of deaths that
Why this is right
This answer shows a parallel situation where providing direct access to exits (aisles leading to each exit in theaters) substantially reduced fatalities in theater fires. It serves as empirical evidence that improving exit accessibility can reduce fatalities, thus supporting the plan's effectiveness in reducing aircraft collision fatalities.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
91% picked this
Removing the seats that block
Irrelevant Quality
The cost associated with refitting aircraft is irrelevant to whether the redesign will actually save lives, which is the Goal we care about. If anything, cost impacts the feasibility of implementing the safety measure, which in this case would work against the Plan.
1% picked this
In the event of fire,
Irrelevant Comparison
This answer discusses smoke detectors reducing fatalities in public buildings by fire detection, not by easing the escape, which is a significantly different causal mechanism compared to blocking access to emergency exits on aircraft. It's not directly related to improving access to emergency exits.
1% picked this
In the event of collision,
Unclear Impact
We don't know whether planes with smaller capacity would have better / worse access to emergency exits, so it's not clear whether this aligns with the author's Plan or not. Also, it's only about severity of injury, whereas we care more about fatalities.
4% picked this
The safety belts attached to
No Impact
The fact that seat belts are helpful doesn't tell us anything about whether yanking out seats near emergency exits would cut down on collision fatalities.
3% 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