Critical Reasoning

5. 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

B

I guess C..... dont understand why OA is B...some one pls explain..

definitely B. It cannot be C, C says 'invoking eveidence'. There is no evidence being invoked here, just a statement where the regulator calrifies that dangerous does not only mean a problem with the plane itself but also the probability of a malfunction to other aircrafts.

Manufacturer assume narrow definition of dangerous in that he thinks that if plane itself is not involved, it is not dangerous. However, second response gives a reason why the plane itself is not involved in accident but can be disastrous.SO we can safely conclude that manufacturer is taking word "dangerous" too narrowly. Hence B.

thank you ppl

I must admit that B seems to be the answer