sayantanc2k wrote:
dpgiii wrote:
I think this is a high-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. I don't understand why D is incorrect (I understand why E is correct). The explanation mentions the comfort pad as one of the three safety features. A bedding material used in one of those safety features has been deemed a "danger of suffocation"... this seems like it certainly undermines the safety claim. Please elaborate. Thank you for your time.
It is given that the bedding material is hazardous in the form that it is supplied to the baby carrier manufacturer. Once the material is made into a carrier, it is no longer a suffocation hazard because it is no longer in bulk form, but in the form of a layer on the baby carrier. The danger of suffocation is to the manufacturer of the baby carrier, not to the baby.
I think I agree with anilsingh33, and with due respect tend to disagree with the explanation above.
Once the material (lets say fabric for the car seat cover) is made into a carrier, how does it guarantees (and who is guaranteeing) that it is no longer a suffocation hazard? Option D doesn't indicate anywhere that the "danger of suffocation" label is applicable only when material is used in bulk form.
Taking another example, if the raw material was foam used for cushion, which is now covered by the car seat cover, so it may not appear to be a suffocation danger in the final product. But what if the car seat cover gets torn after usage and the foam gets exposed? Now, it will be definitely a suffocation danger.
So option D is still weakening the claim made, just like option E is.
I would say that option D is a invalid option in the manner it has been presented in the question statement.