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