Correct Answer: Caitlin Harwood
Passage Reference: who lambasted the ads and dubbed the Fortuna aircraft “the Misfortuna.” Marketing professor Caitlin Harwood labels the 3000 Intercontinental “a flawed product, flawlessly marketed.”
Why this is correct: Blumfeld attacks the ads and calls the plane “the Misfortuna.” In the last paragraph, Harwood calls it “a flawed product, flawlessly marketed.” So each of them thinks the plane is flawed and the ads hide it.
Tips: For a “whose opinion is similar” question, sum up the first person’s view in a few words. Then check each name for the same view.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Eveline Ryall: Ryall praises the plane for saving fuel and cutting emissions. Blumfeld mocks it as unsafe.
- Goran Pekarchuk: Pekarchuk is the airline’s CEO and calls it “the world’s best commercial aircraft.” That is the opposite of Blumfeld’s view.
- Hamida Barzun: Barzun loves the plane and brushes off safety worries. Blumfeld jokes that the engines will catch fire.
Correct Answer: launched an aggressive response to adversity
Passage Reference: hastily reinforced the blades on affected aircraft; conducted quick, semi-scientific tests convincing the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the blade was safe
Why this is correct: Look at the second paragraph. Fortuna was racing a rival, so it fixed the blades “hastily” and ran “quick” tests. It also got approval before the safety investigation ended. That is an aggressive response to trouble.
Tips: When a question asks what a company did, look for a list of actions. Then find the option that sums them all up.
Why the other options are wrong:
- prevented turbine engine failures aboard new aircraft: The blades still crack “for still-unknown reasons,” and the fix is called a band-aid. So engine failures were not prevented.
- gained the confidence of the Transportation Safety Board: The safety board was not won over. It sent a stern letter asking for stricter checks.
- standardized quality control testing of outsourced components: Standardized testing of outsourced components is what the NTSB urged. Fortuna never put this quality control in place.
Correct Answer: the Federal Aviation Administration
Passage Reference: acquired that regulator’s approval to re-launch the 3000
Why this is correct: In the second paragraph, Fortuna convinced the FAA that the blade was safe. It then got “that regulator’s approval to re-launch the 3000.” That approval helped Fortuna most.
Tips: “Benefited” means someone got something good. Look for words like “approval” or “support” and see who gave them.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the Nimbus Company: Nimbus Air is Fortuna’s rival in the race to launch a new plane. Fortuna gained nothing from it.
- the Globe and Mail media: The Globe and Mail writer mocks the plane as “the Misfortuna,” which does not help Fortuna.
- the National Transportation Safety Board: The safety board sent a stern letter asking for stricter checks, so it did not help Fortuna.
Correct Answer: Power Tech Corporation may have cut corners
Passage Reference: Some suspect that the company responsible for manufacturing these parts is trying to save time and cut costs at the expense of quality.
Why this is correct: The first paragraph says “Some suspect” that Power Tech is cutting costs “at the expense of quality.” This is only suspected, not proven, so “may have cut corners” is the safe conclusion.
Tips: For a “reasonably conclude” question, watch for careful words like “some suspect.” The right option often uses a careful word like “may.”
Why the other options are wrong:
- Nimbus Air produces safer jetliners: The article only says Nimbus Air is a rival. It never compares how safe their jets are.
- Fortuna waited for the NTSB’s final report: Fortuna got approval before the safety board had finished its work, so it did not wait for the final report.
- Valhalla Air flies only 3000s: The 3000 is called “the latest addition to its fleet,” so Valhalla Air has other planes too.
Correct Answer: Marketing Dream, Safety Nightmare
Passage Reference: “a flawed product, flawlessly marketed.”
Why this is correct: The article shows a plane with cracking blades that is sold with an “extravagant marketing campaign.” Harwood sums it up as “a flawed product, flawlessly marketed.”
Tips: A good title covers the whole text, not one detail. Ask yourself what most of the paragraphs talk about.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Better Than Airworthy, Claims FAA: The FAA only accepted quick, half-scientific tests. It never claims the plane is “better than airworthy.”
- Faulty Engine Still Puzzles Experts: The cause of the cracks is unknown, but that is only one detail. Most of the article is about safety and slick ads.
- New Technology Cuts Carbon Emissions: Lower emissions are Ryall’s point. That is one voice in the article, not its main idea.
Correct Answer: a corporation showing disregard for due process
Passage Reference: This all occurred before the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had finished its incident investigation.
Why this is correct: The second paragraph says all this happened “before the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had finished its incident investigation.” Fortuna did not wait for the proper steps.
Tips: Test each option with the phrase “This is a tale of.” The right one should describe the main problem in the whole story.
Why the other options are wrong:
- an investigation being hampered by a journalist: Blumfeld only mocks the ads. Nothing says the journalist got in the way of the investigation.
- a regulator operating independently from a business: The FAA approved the plane after Fortuna’s quick tests. The comment also says Transport Canada protects profits, so no regulator acts on its own here.
- an authority ignoring binding recommendations: The safety board only urged changes in a letter. The rushing was done by a company, not by an authority.
Correct Answer: regulators had been forced to act in the public’s interest
Passage Reference: The NTSB responded with a stern letter urging more guidance from independent experts and more stringent and standardized verification
Why this is correct: The safety board asked for “more guidance from independent experts” and stricter checks. So the trouble could have been avoided if regulators had been made to protect the public.
Tips: “Could have been avoided if” asks what was missing. Look in the text for what someone said should have been done.
Why the other options are wrong:
- consumers had been given more safety reassurances by the airline: The comment winces at a passenger’s easy trust. More comforting words from the airline would not have helped.
- designers of European jets had been consulted about the blades: Nobody suggests asking European designers. Nimbus Air is mentioned only as Fortuna’s rival.
- manufacturers had known more about how to market their aircraft: Knowing how to market the aircraft was never the problem. The ads were already very clever.
Correct Answer: accountable
Passage Reference: hastily reinforced the blades on affected aircraft; conducted quick, semi-scientific tests
Why this is correct: Fortuna fixed the blades “hastily” and ran only “quick, semi-scientific tests.” So the comment wants the government to make Fortuna answer for its actions, which means being accountable.
Tips: Read the sentences around the blank in the comment. They show what the writer is angry about, and the missing word should fix that problem.
Why the other options are wrong:
- fuel-conscious: The comment already accepts that the plane saves fuel. The complaint is about safety.
- accessible: Nobody talks about how easy it is to reach or use the company.
- profitable: The comment complains that profits come before safety, so more profit is not the demand.
Correct Answer: propulsion
Passage Reference: blades crack and break in midflight. This disrupts engine flow and requires engine shutdown
Why this is correct: The first paragraph says the turbine blades “crack and break in midflight.” This “requires engine shutdown.” The engines push the plane forward, so these are propulsion problems.
Tips: When the blank needs a general word, find the specific problem in the text first. Then ask which option names that type of problem.
Why the other options are wrong:
- electrical: The article talks about cracked blades and engines shutting down, not electrical faults.
- landing: Landing problems are never mentioned. The failures happen in the engines.
- navigation: Navigation systems are not discussed. The problems are with the engine blades.
Correct Answer: its made-in-Canada components
Passage Reference: Valhalla Air’s videos shrewdly ignore overseas outsourcing while emphasizing its made-in-Canada components
Why this is correct: Look at the last paragraph. Harwood says the airline’s videos ignore overseas outsourcing “while emphasizing its made-in-Canada components.”
Tips: When the comment says what something “stresses” or “ignores”, look for a sentence in the text that uses the same pair of ideas.
Why the other options are wrong:
- its low ticket prices: Ticket prices never come up. The videos focus on where the parts are made.
- its record of safe flights: The plane was grounded after engine failures, and the videos do not talk about a safety record.
- its new pilot training: Pilot training is never mentioned. A pilot appears in one video, but the stress is on made-in-Canada parts.
