When three Indian-owned trains purchased from Transcontinental Trains crashed within a two month time period, the Indian parliament ordered the acquisition of three new Transcontinental trains as replacements. This decision surprised many because it is customary for users to shun a product after it is involved in accidents.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best indication that the decision of the Indian government was well supported?
Support to the decision of Indian government regarding re-ordering of three trains as replacements, which were purchased from TT, even after accidents of such trains (within two months after purchase).
It can be strengthen, if
1) Competent manufacturers are manufacturing inferior quality of trains than TT trains
2) TT trains have superior quality material which can reduce the other damages or reduce the intensity of other damages.
A. Although during the previous year only one transcontinental train crashed, competing manufacturers had a perfect safety record. - It's weakener. If other competing manufacturers had a perfect safety record, then Indian government should go for it.
B. The Transcontinental-built trains crashed due to sabotage, but because of the excellent quality of the trains, fire was averted increasing the number of survivors. - In such case, it was wise call taken by Indian government by replacing the three trains as it prevented the another accident which could increase the death toll.
C. The Indian Railway Commission issued new guidelines for trains in order to standardize safety requirements governing inspections. - Out of scope
D. Consumer advocates pressured two major railway companies into purchasing safer trains so that the public would be safer. - So, what, how it strengthens decision of Indian government? No way.
E. Many Transcontinental Train employees had to be replaced because they found jobs with the competition - Out of scope