More aircraft collisions are occurring because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. However, we are told that the fatalities are occurring not because of the collision itself, but because of a flaw in the cabin design of most aircrafts: some seats are restricting access to emergency exits. Thus, it is proposed that in order to reach the stated objective of reducing fatalities that result annually from such collisions, airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.
The question stem asks us which answer choice, IF IMPLEMENTED TOGETHER WITH THE PROPOSAL MADE IN THE PASSAGE, would improve prospects for achieving the stated objective.
Answer choice (A) states: "The airlines should be required, when buying new planes, to buy only planes with unrestricted access to emergency exits."
Though this measure will help in achieving the stated objective, it will not--together with the proposal in the stimulus, i.e. taking out the seats already present in aircrafts that block the emergency exit--improve prospects for achieving the stated objective; the proposal in the passage already makes sure that there are no seats blocking the emergency exits.
We are looking for an answer choice that would improve the prospects for the stated objective of reducing fatalities if implemented along with the proposal made in the passage. Answer choice (A) and the proposal in the passage merely accomplish the same thing: that there will be no seats blocking the emergency exit.
Answer choice (B), on the other hand, makes sure that because of lost seats due to the proposal in the passage, airlines do not increase the amount of flights in the air, further increasing the chance of collisions and fatalities. Thus, if we take answer choice (B) and the proposal from the passage together, we will improve the prospects for achieving the stated objective because not only will all aircrafts no longer have seats that block emergency exits, but airlines will not be allowed to compensate for the loss in seats by adding more flights, which would increase the chance of collisions.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
FlavioMarch 8, 2016
Would B then be a no cause, no effect answer choice?
