Why not answer choice C??

@Kyra, Happy to help! In the stimulus, we're told that the number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. We're then told that a design flaw is what causes many of the fatalities in these crashes. The argument then concludes that to reduce the total number of fatalities that result annual from such collisions, the airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits. We're tasked with selecting a proposal in the answer choices that, if implemented together with the proposal made in the passage, would improve the prospects for achieving the stated objective for reducing fatalities. This is a strengthen question. We're looking to strengthen the argument. There are two key levers to reducing fatalities. The first is the number of flights operated by airlines. The reason this is a key lever is because the first sentence states that it's the reason that there have been more collisions on the ground, to begin with. The second lever is removing seats that restrict access to emergency exits, as this is the reason for many of the fatalities that occur during such collisions. The conclusion of the argument addresses this second lever by proposing the removal of all seats that restrict access. But what if the removal of these seats creates even greater demand for more flights because airplanes now only have an average of 150 seats instead of 200 seats? This could lead to even more collisions on the ground, which could exacerbate the problem. In other words, the argument doesn't address the problem of reducing the number of collisions in the first place. This is where we could strengthen it. You asked about answer C. Let's look at it. Answer C says that airport authorities should be required to streamline their passenger check-in procedures to accommodate the increased number of passengers served by the airlines. This would not strengthen the argument. Even if we assume C were true, having passengers check in faster does not solve the problem of the increase in the number of flights causing more ground collisions. Just because people are waiting less in line while catching their flight doesn't mean that there will be fewer flights. This would not help reduce fatalities if it were combined with the argument's proposal of removing all seats that restrict access to emergency exits. Answer B, on the other hand, definitely strengthens the argument. It says that the airlines should not be permitted to increase further the number of flights in order to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft. This would help the argument a ton because it would reduce the likelihood of an even greater increase in the number of collisions, to begin with. If airlines can't add more flights, then the fact that the number of flights are remaining constant, coupled with the removal of all seats that restrict access to emergency exists, would improve the prospects for achieving the stated objective of reducing fatalities. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!