It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 04:24

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 684

Kudos [?]: 619 [1], given: 0

Show Tags

02 May 2008, 12:05
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

72% (01:27) correct 28% (00:47) wrong based on 134 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Kudos [?]: 619 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 545

Kudos [?]: 567 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

02 May 2008, 12:59
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.

Kudos [?]: 567 [0], given: 2

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 0

Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton

Show Tags

02 May 2008, 13:31
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.

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 May 2008, 14:39
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.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 102

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 11

Show Tags

30 Jun 2010, 10:04
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.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 11

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

Show Tags

30 Jun 2010, 11:12
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

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 102

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 11

Show Tags

01 Jul 2010, 11:10
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.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 11

Manager
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 8

Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 14:52
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.

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 8

Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 25

Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 25

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10129

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Jul 2016, 12:27
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2016
Posts: 33

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

Show Tags

15 Aug 2017, 20:41
Hello Verbal Experts,

I feel answer for this one is B.

But not sure why A is wrong? Can anyone please explain this one?

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2016
Posts: 33

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

Show Tags

15 Aug 2017, 20:43
Hello Verbal Experts,

I feel answer for this one is B.

But not sure why A is wrong? Can anyone please explain this one?

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

Re: Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of   [#permalink] 15 Aug 2017, 20:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by