Reading Comprehension

Dogs may be not only man's best friend but also one of the nation's best defenses against terrorism. They have a keen sense of smell and a strong ability to differentiate between scents. Research shows that while humans have 5 million olfactory cells, more than chimpanzees and most other primates, dogs have over 300 million such cells. In addition, the part of the brain responsible for processing smell is up to 40 times larger in dogs than in humans.

Dogs are used to detect explosives, narcotics, bulk cash and concealed humans. With the increased levels of security in the United States since September 11, 2001, the country has seen a dramatic increase in the number of explosives-detection canines used by law enforcement and private companies. A common question is whether there is a need for national standards for explosives-detection canines. In 1996, Congress directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to develop national odor recognition standards for explosives-detection canines.

In response to the growing demand nationwide for explosives-detection canines, as well as concerns about the quality of canines being procured by law enforcement agencies from non-governmental sources, ATF is taking steps to provide more assistance to state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies. This includes providing training and knowledge to help law enforcement agencies ensure proficiency among their explosives-detection canines, giving agencies the ability to evaluate and rectify shortcomings.

More than 50 percent of all law enforcement canine teams are not associated with a recognized federal canine training program or certification. There are numerous private vendors selling explosives-detection canines that have trained those dogs according to inconsistent standards and under various conditions. In fact, there is no consistent definition of what even constitutes an explosives-detection canine. Because of this lack of consistency, and for safety reasons, the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board has stated that they would like every explosives-detection canine working in conjunction with a bomb squad in the United States to have passed a standard certification test.

Which of the following best represents the logical role of the highlighted statement?

A
To state a concern that will be discussed in detail and finally dismissed outright
B
To reinforce the claim made in the first sentence of the passage
C
To introduce a new topic that further supports the issues introduced in the second paragraph
D
To introduce a new issue that the author discusses in the remainder of the passage.
E
To explain a concern shared by several parties in the passage but considered unfounded by the author of the passage.

pradeepkaushal9518 wrote: Which of the following best represents the logical role of the highlighted statement?

A
To state a concern that will be discussed in detail and finally dismissed outright - The underlined statement is not a concern, just a topic of debate. Also, it is not dismissed in the end. Incorrect.
B
To reinforce the claim made in the first sentence of the passage - The underlined statement - A common question is whether there is a need for national standards for explosives-detection canines. is no way reinforcing claim made in the first statement - Dogs may be not only man's best friend but also one of the nation's best defenses against terrorism
C
To introduce a new topic that further supports the issues introduced in the second paragraph - While the underlined portion introduces a new topic, it does not support the issues introduced earlier in the paragraph. Incorrect.
D
To introduce a new issue that the author discusses in the remainder of the passage. - Correct. The statement introduces a new issue and the author spends the remainder of the passage discussing the issue.
E
To explain a concern shared by several parties in the passage but considered unfounded by the author of the passage. - First, the underlined statement is not a concern, and second, it is never considered unfounded by the author. Incorrect.

IMO D.
OA please.

Same I would go with D on this one too. what is your doubt?

I will go with 'D'.

I feel it should be "C" cause apart from introducing a new topic it does support the issue given in the 2nd para itself.
"D" seems right but with respect to "C" only one part seems right while "C" has both right.