Summary
In older commercial airplanes, flight crew members could immediately see changes made in the plane’s flight control panel. However, in newer airplanes these changes are harder for crew members to see, therefore eliminating a means for cross-checks. As a result, flight crews operating newer airplanes must verbally inform each other about control panel changes much more often.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The frequency flight crew members must talk to each other about changes to a plane’s flight controls depends on what other means for communicating these changes are available.
A
How frequently an airplane’s flight crew members will inform each other verbally about flight control changes depends in large part on how long it takes to perform those changes.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how long it takes for crew members to make any changes to a flight’s control.
B
In recently manufactured aircraft, the most valuable means available for performing cross-checks involves frequent verbal exchanges of information among the flight crew members.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the crew talking amongst themselves is “the most valuable means available” to them. There could exist other methods that weren’t mentioned and are more valuable.
C
In older commercial airplanes, in contrast to recently manufactured airplanes, flight crew members have no need to exchange information verbally about flight control changes.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know that crew members had no need to talk to each other in older airplanes. We only know from the stimulus that in newer airplanes, crew members must talk to each other more often.
D
The flight crew members operating a recently manufactured airplane cannot observe the flight control changes made by other crew members by viewing the control panel.
This answer is unsupported. We only know from the stimulus that, in newer airplanes, changes to the control panel are harder for crew members to see. Harder to see does not imply that these changes are impossible to see.
E
How often flight crew members must share information verbally about flight control changes depends in part on what other means for performing cross-checks are available to the crew.
This answer is strongly supported. The change in crew member’s ability to directly see changes in a flight’s control panel caused the crew members to talk with each other more frequently.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that an automobile-manufacturing factory could not postpone safety inspections under a proposed Act. This is because the Act would require all automobile-manufacturing factories to register as a class B factories. Furthermore, under the Act, a class B factory may not postpone inspections.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author draws a conclusion by combining two premises given by the Act. If a type of factory must be registered in a general class, then a given rule of that general class—in this case, punctual safety inspections—must apply to that type of factory.
A
pointing out how two provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act jointly entail the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs
The author points out how two provisions—the classification of automobile manufacturers as class B factories, and the rule of timely inspections for class B factories—jointly entail the unacceptability of automobile manufacturers postponing inspections.
B
considering two possible interpretations of a proposed legal regulation and eliminating the less plausible one
The author does not consider different interpretations of the Act, but instead draws a definitive conclusion based on a single interpretation of the Act.
C
showing that the terms of the proposed Factory Safety Act are incompatible with existing legislation
The author doesn’t address any existing legislation other than the proposed Act.
D
showing that two different provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act conflict and thus cannot apply to a particular situation
The author doesn’t show that two provisions of the Act conflict, but rather draws a conclusion based on how two compatible provisions interact.
E
pointing out that if a provision applies in a specific situation, it must apply in any analogous situation
The author doesn’t address any analogous situations, only specifically dealing with the timing of safety inspections for automobile manufacturers under the proposed Act.
Cookie Cutter Review
(D) is a direct contradiction of what the two speakers state. Nearly all the easier Disagree questions show the contradiction on the face of the text. The harder ones tend to hide the contradiction in inferences.
Cookie Cutter Review
This is an RRE question where the stimulus gives us a phenomenon and (E) provides a hypothesis.
Cookie Cutter Review
Causation
(A) related effect
(C) control group
(D) consistent data
(E) related cause
Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - source or character attack (A)
(B) conflation of distinct ideas
(C) failure to prove X confused with proof of not X
(D) evidence against X confused with evidence for X
(E) too small sample size / over-generalization
Cookie Cutter Review
Weaken question where the argument describes a phenomenon and offer one hypothesis. (C) offers an alternative hypothesis.