Critical Reasoning

Insurance that was to become effective at 9 A.M. on a certain date was taken out on the life of a flight attendant. He died on that date at 10 A.M. local time, which was two hours before 9 A.M. in the time zone where the policy had been purchased. The insurance company contended that the policy had not become effective; a representative of the flight attendant’s beneficiary, his mother, countered by arguing that the policy amount should be paid because the attendant had been his mother’s sole support, and she was ill.
The representative’s argument is flawed as a counter to the insurance company’s contention because
(A) the conclusion is no more than a paraphrase of evidence offered in support of it
(B) it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised
(C) it makes an unwarranted distinction between family obligations and business obligations
(D) it substitutes an attack on a person for the giving of reasons
(E) a cause and its effect are mistaken for each other
:roll:

thats tricky..

whats d source??
is it a gmat question?? i doubt..is it c??

IMO: (B)

IMO B

B... it says nothing abt the argument of the time zone..

OA??

such a sad story, isn't it?

IMO C is the answer. I could not read it more than once because my vision is distorted by tears.

IMO its B

the insurance company denied paying out the policy money

Instead of reasoning why the company should pay the policy money(some thing like all insurance companies go by the time zone where the insurance was bought and so should you), the representative comes up with the sorry state of the mother.

C to me is a trap, there are personal or family obligations but there is no business Obligation and there is no such discussion as well.

the OA: B :

Answer is clearly B here