Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word `explosion' and use the phrase `energetic disassembly' instead. In fact, the word `explosion' elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore of the two terms, `explosion' is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?


a) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable
reactions to the term `explosion' outweigh the drawbacks, if any,
arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
b) The phrase `energetic disassembly' has not so far been used as a
substitute for the word `explosion' in the kind of discussion at issue.
c) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the
participants is more important than how it is put into words.
d) The only reason that people would have for using `energetic
disassembly' in place of `explosion' is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
e) The phrase `energetic disassembly' is not necessarily out of
place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

A also. If you negate A, there is no point in claiming that it is preferable to use the term 'explosion'
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

A makes more sense than D. Negating D does not break the argument.

A is correct.

I thought D and E were both pretty solid choices.