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

Question

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

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Manufacturer says that X-387 is not dangerous. It has never had any serious malfunction or crashed.
The regulator says that it is dangerous. It creates hazards for other aircrafts.

Note that the regulator does not object to the manufacturer's claim of X-387 not malfunctioning etc. He increases the scope of the term 'dangerous' to include how it impacts others too.

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

Incorrect. The regulator does not say that you are not evaluating facts. He doesn't imply that the manufacturer is being subjective.

(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the manufacturer’s interpretation of the word "dangerous" is too narrow

Correct. The manufacturer seems to apply the term 'dangerous' to an aircraft that malfunctions of crashes. The regulator applies the term 'dangerous' more broadly bu including its impact on other aircrafts too. As per him, an aircraft is dangerous if it endangers other aircrafts. The manufacturer ignores this particular aspect and includes only how the aircraft functions itself.

(C) Invoking evidence that the manufacturer has explicitly dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue

Consider the term "explicitly" use here. Does the manufacturer explicitly dismiss the point of endangering other nearby aircrafts irrelevant? No, he doesn't. He doesn't even mention this point. So he doesn't explicitly dismiss it. Hence the regulator does not invoke evidence against any explicit dismissal.

(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the manufacturer’s claim

There is no statistical evidence given to refute the manufacturer's claim. Statistical evidence to do that would be something like "in 2002, 2 X-387s had major malfunction during their flights" etc.

(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the manufacturer’s knowledge of the number of recent airline disasters

The regulator does not cast doubt on the manufacturer's knowledge of number of recent airline disasters.

Answer (B)

mymba99 · Answer

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.

gixxer1000 · Answer

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.

RyanDe680 · Answer

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.

dwivedys · Answer

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

abhas59 · Answer

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.

anshul0130 · Answer

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

Thanks,
Anshul P

waytowharton · Answer

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

KarishmaB · Answer

(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

SolankiDas · Answer

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"

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

"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."

Paras96 · Answer

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.

kumari555 · Answer

I am stuck b/w A and B not able to eliminate A..... I thought subjective point is it has never crashed and not serious malfunction and objective means it neglect harm to others.

WhitEngagePrep · Answer

The airline regulator isn't attacking the manufacturer for being biased or opinionated (that would be accusing them of using a subjective lens). Rather, the regulator is saying that the manufacturer is limiting their view of "dangerous" to only issues that cause the plane itself to fail. By saying, "you didn't consider these broader possible impacts," the regulator is saying that the manufacturer is taking a view that is too narrow. Subjective is stemming from opinion or belief. A subjective claim here would be one where the manufacturer says something like, "The X-387 isn't dangerous because it feels smoother to ride in and seems less noisy, so it must be well built." Objective is stemming from fact-based support. The manufacturers claims of "no crashes and no serious malfunctions" is mostly objective (you could argue that they haven't defined what "serious" means so that might be slightly subjective). Subjective = opinions, Objective = facts.

Whit

kumari555 · Answer

Thank you so much Whit:heart:heart now I got clear

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia