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
Manufacturer says that X-387 is not dangerous. It has never had any serious malfunction or crashed.
The regulator says that it is dangerous. It creates hazards for other aircrafts.
Note that the regulator does not object to the manufacturer's claim of X-387 not malfunctioning etc. He increases the scope of the term 'dangerous' to include how it impacts others too.
(A) Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts
Incorrect. The regulator does not say that you are not evaluating facts. He doesn't imply that the manufacturer is being subjective.
(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word "dangerous" is too narrow
Correct. The manufacturer seems to apply the term 'dangerous' to an aircraft that malfunctions of crashes. The regulator applies the term 'dangerous' more broadly bu including its impact on other aircrafts too. As per him, an aircraft is dangerous if it endangers other aircrafts. The manufacturer ignores this particular aspect and includes only how the aircraft functions itself.
(C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue
Consider the term "explicitly" use here. Does the manufacturer explicitly dismiss the point of endangering other nearby aircrafts irrelevant? No, he doesn't. He doesn't even mention this point. So he doesn't explicitly dismiss it. Hence the regulator does not invoke evidence against any explicit dismissal.
(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim
There is no statistical evidence given to refute the manufacturer's claim. Statistical evidence to do that would be something like "in 2002, 2 X-387s had major malfunction during their flights" etc.
(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters
The regulator does not cast doubt on the manufacturer's knowledge of number of recent airline disasters.
Answer (B)