Question has to read:

Bus company president: A city councilman has stated his objection to the claim that the city buses are SAFE. This is clearly untrue.

If it says "dangerous" instead of safe, then as others have pointed out above, the statement would not make sense given the context of the exchange bw the Prez and the Councilman.

B

As gmat1011 and others have stated, the question is worded incorrectly. Based on the answer choices, I went ahead and corrected the stimulus in my head in order to select B as the correct answer.

The city council does not object to the statement that city buses are dangerous, he actually supports that statement!

My take is B

yes B it is

B for me. Nice non-traditional CR question BTW.

Poor wording of the stimulus.
MODERATORS please rephrase the question. Such questions will only help in wasting one's time.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting

Bus company president: A city councilman has stated his objection to the claim that the city buses are dangerous. This is clearly untrue. None of the new buses in use has ever been crashed or even had a serious malfunction.
City councilman: The problem with the new buses is not that they malfunction, but that they are so flamboyantly painted that other drivers on the road are distracted and this may cause accidents.

The councilman responds to the bus company president by doing which of the following? -> Paraphrase: what does the way City councilman counter the argument of bus company president.
I will look for the answer trying to state that the definition of dangerous in argument of Bus company president is narrower than that of councilman.

(A) Characterizing the bus company president’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts -> No subjective / objective evaluation in the premises. This answer is out of scope
(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the bus company president’s interpretation of the word “dangerous” is too narrow. -> Seem to fit what I am looking for. Tick this answer and go on the next answer
(C) Invoking evidence that the bus company president has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant the point at issue -> Seem to attractive if I read through quickly but when I re-read I figured out that the bus company president didn't dismiss any evidence -> Out of scope
(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the bus company president’s claim -> No statistical evidence cited so far -> Out of scope
(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the bus company president’s knowledge of the number of recent traffic accidents -> Premises by councilman didn't say anything about number of recent traffic accidents -> Out of scope

Therefore, the answer is B. It took 48s for all the process