|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 715
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
69
[1] , given: 0
|
Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of [#permalink]
 02 May 2008, 12:05
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
33% (04:09) correct
66% (00:39) wrong based on 1 sessions
Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of our X-387 jets as dangerous. No X-387 in commercial use has ever crashed or even had a serious malfunction. Airline regulator: The problem with the X-387 is not that it, itself, malfunctions, but that it creates turbulence in its wake that can create hazardous conditions for aircraft in its vicinity. The airline regulator responds to the manufacturer by doing which of the following? (A) Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts (B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word "dangerous" is too narrow (C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue (D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim (E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters
_________________
Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Wow this one is tough!! +1 to you. I would go for B..I had tough call between A and B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 559
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
46
[0], given: 2
|
B
(A) Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts
No characterizing or blah blah...
He just said ,look there is something else that is dangerous.
Typical use of 'polished terms' trap. (characterizing, assertion, subjective, objective, facts..etc)
(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word "dangerous" is too narrow
Right.
(C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue
yes he invoked evidence, but the evidence is different from this choice.So out.
(typical half right,half wrong trap)
(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim
he never mentioned statistics.
Again the word evidence may lure some test takers..(also notice the words.. refutes..claim..polished words trap)
(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters
knowledge...?out of scope. clearly out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 86
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with B as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3439
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
134
[0], given: 2
|
i say A...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 0
|
B
A is incorrect because the manufactures assertion is not subjective. The fact that the plane has never crashed or had a serious malfuntion is an objective fact. The manufacture however is limiting the scope of dangerous to only pertain to their aircraft and not others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 513
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 0
|
B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 204
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
prasannar wrote: Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of our X-387 jets as dangerous. No X-387 in commercial use has ever crashed or even had a serious malfunction.
Airline regulator: The problem with the X-387 is not that it, itself, malfunctions, but that it creates turbulence in its wake that can create hazardous conditions for aircraft in its vicinity.
The airline regulator responds to the manufacturer by doing which of the following?
(A) Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts
(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word "dangerous" is too narrow
(C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue
(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim
(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters I would go with B. C, D, and E are irrelevant to either the manufacturer's discussion or the regulator's reponse. Option A wouldn't be a bad choice if it didn't state "subjective" or "facts" since neither are presented in the small discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 108
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 11
|
can anyone please explain what the term "manufacturer has explicitly dismissed " with respect to argument means?
I thought C to be the correct one but now I seem a bit confused about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
I think C is more appropriate. I was between B and C but rejected because it sounded like an extreme choice "too narrow"; while it can be argued that the manufacturer is looking at the evidence somewhat narrowly yet it is not so narrow as to qualify as too narrow but then again this could be subjective. But C brings the same evidence back into focus by claiming it to be actually relevant and not irrelevant (something which the manufacturer attempts to do). Pls post OA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 108
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 11
|
Change of mind after reading PowerScore CR Bible. C is not the correct option: Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue Manufacturer has not dismissed the evidence given by airline regulator. Regulator draws evidence to counter the claim made by the manufacturer that jets are not dangerous (or safe) and thus B is a better option than C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1570
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
121
[0], given: 6
|
A for me. what is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 203
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 8
|
I choose B. The manufacturer did not consider the effect of the aircraft on other aircraft as "dangerous" and the regulator pointed this fact out in the counter-argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 33
Schools: CBS
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 1
|
B...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 22
|
Re: Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of [#permalink]
23 Aug 2012, 00:47
Now I realize B) is the best answer provided, even it is too extreme.
C) is incorrect since manufacturer has not dismissed any evidence.
Thanks for clear explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of
[#permalink]
23 Aug 2012, 00:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
