Editorialist: The city council is considering increasing the amount of air traffic allowed at the airport beyond its ...

shunhe on April 2, 2020

Hi @Masada,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at what the passage is saying. The editorialist is arguing that increasing the amount of air traffic at the airport beyond its original design capacity would decrease safety. Why does the editorialist think this? Because of studies 30 years ago that show that despite the latest technology, safety was reduced when traffic was increased to those levels.

We’re asked to find a flaw in the editorialists argument, and so we should sit back and do some pre-phrasing. One assumption that the author seems to make is that the technology of nowadays isn’t significantly different from the technology of 30 years ago. After all, if the technology of today were significantly better, it might be possible to increase airport traffic with the new technology of today. It’s just like saying how there’s no way we could watch TV with the latest technology today, because the latest technology of 100 years ago wouldn’t have let those people watch TV. This is one possible flaw, and looking down at the answer choices, this is what (B) tells us. (B) tells us that the argument doesn’t consider potential differences in “the latest technology” between today and 30 years ago, and so (B) is the correct answer.

(D) is incorrect because the editorialist isn’t saying that there’s an absence of evidence for safe air traffic. The editorialist is making a stronger claim: that there is evidence against the expansion, based on the studies from 30 years ago. Thus, the editorialist is not making the mistake in (D), and we can eliminate (D).

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.

Masada on April 23, 2020

thank you so much!