Airplane manufacturer: I object to your characterization of our X-387

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.

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.

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

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.

VeritasKarishma - Can you pls share the detailed analysis of this CR question ?

Thanks,
Anshul P

Thanks KarishmaB for amazing explanation of all answer choices. However, I am facing difficulty to understand option A and D. Why is option A incorrect?

A. Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts

Doesn't the regulator respond to manufacturer by saying that though no X-387 plane has crashed(subjective interest) but it creates hazardous conditions in vicinity(objective evaluation = unbiased)? I think this is the implied meaning which option A captures.

Moreover, I am also not clear on option D.

D. Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim

Is option D incorrect only because of word statistical? Otherwise, would it be correct. Because regulator refutes manufacturer's claim(I object to your characterization of our X-387 jets as dangerous) by saying that I do not object to characterization by introducing new points.

Thanks in advance!
GMATNinja

(A) is incorrect because there is no subjective/objective discussion.
The manufacturer’s discussion is objective only and evaluates facts. The manufacturer says that his planes have never had serious malfunction or crashes (data). That is why his planes are safe. Subjective evaluation is when we don’t use data such as “everyone feels that our planes are safe.” etc.
The regulator points out that though that may be the case, the planes are a hazard to other planes in the vicinity. Hence dangerous is a wider term (they should not be harmful themselves and should not cause others any harm either).
The regulator does not claim that the manufacturer is not evaluating facts.

(D) is incorrect because the regulator does not refute the manufacturer’s claim at all. He accepts it but points out something else to consider too. And yes, he doesn’t give any statistical evidence either (figures and numbers).

Posted from my mobile device

Characterizing the manufacturer???s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts.

Want a literal explanation of this option.

"Stemming from subjective interest" means that somebody is making claims that are based on her/his own personal investment in the matter at hand. E.g., recommending financial policies that will allow the recommender herself/himself to personally gain or pay fewer taxes.

So, if this answer choice were correct, the regulator would be telling the manufacturer something like, "You're only saying that for your own selfish reasons / because you stand to gain from it. That doesn't work for others / in general."
Thank for the reply.

Also want to the literal meaning of "Objective evaluation"

"Stemming from subjective interest" means that somebody is making claims that are based on her/his own personal investment in the matter at hand. E.g., recommending financial policies that will allow the recommender herself/himself to personally gain or pay fewer taxes.

So, if this answer choice were correct, the regulator would be telling the manufacturer something like, "You're only saying that for your own selfish reasons / because you stand to gain from it. That doesn't work for others / in general."

Certainly, let's go through the options and explain why option (B) is the correct choice:

(A) Characterizing the manufacturer’s assertion as stemming from subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts.
- This option suggests that the manufacturer's assertion is based on subjective interest rather than objective evaluation of facts. This does not accurately describe the regulator's response, which addresses the specific interpretation of the term "dangerous" and does not focus on subjective interests.

(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word "dangerous" is too narrow.
- This option correctly identifies the regulator's response. The regulator is challenging the manufacturer's argument by suggesting that their interpretation of "dangerous" is too narrow. While the manufacturer focuses on the absence of crashes and malfunctions, the regulator points out that there are other factors, such as turbulence, that can contribute to the jets being considered dangerous.

(C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue.
- This option suggests that the regulator is bringing up evidence that the manufacturer has dismissed as irrelevant. While the regulator introduces a different aspect of danger (turbulence), it's not explicitly stated in the passage that the manufacturer dismissed this evidence as irrelevant. The passage doesn't provide information on whether the manufacturer explicitly dismissed this evidence.

(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim.
- The passage doesn't mention the use of statistical evidence to refute the manufacturer's claim. The regulator's response is more about broadening the interpretation of "dangerous" rather than presenting statistical evidence.

(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters.
- The passage doesn't involve casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer's knowledge of airline disasters. It's primarily about the differing interpretations of the term "dangerous" in the context of the X-387 jets.

Option (B) is the correct choice because it accurately describes the nature of the regulator's response, which challenges the manufacturer's interpretation of "dangerous" as being too narrow.