This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

X-387

by maihuna » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:50 pm
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
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by niraj_a » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:01 pm
B for me, by POE.

D was a close one for me, but i interpreted statistical evidence to mean say the # of X planes that crashed. C is wrong because the manufacturer never directly revokes the regulator's premises.

Legendary Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta
Thanked: 17 times

by pandeyvineet24 » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:43 pm
I would go for A.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 2 times

by vikram_k51 » Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:11 pm
Will go with B.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

Re: X-387

by gmatmachoman » Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:35 am
maihuna wrote: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
IMO B

Explanation: "X-387 jets is dangerous or not" is discussed by the regulator & manufacturer by citing various evidences.
Since becox the manufacture misunderstood the magnitude of the term "dangerous and confined only to his aircraft,I go with B that serves the issue..

Comments maihuna!!!

Initially C was a eyecatcher..But finely disentangled it...

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 12 May 2008
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:45 pm
I would go for - D

Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:59 am
gmatmachoman wrote:
maihuna wrote: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
IMO B

Explanation: "X-387 jets is dangerous or not" is discussed by the regulator & manufacturer by citing various evidences.
Since becox the manufacture misunderstood the magnitude of the term "dangerous and confined only to his aircraft,I go with B that serves the issue..

Comments maihuna!!!

Initially C was a eyecatcher..But finely disentangled it...
Ohh sorry for being so late, B it is. Since Manufactures have not dismissed anything explicitly or implicitly it is not supported. Nothing like casting doubt too so E is also out, agreed B has some extremeness.
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 12 May 2008
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:27 pm
@maihuna - you mean OA is B?

Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:41 pm
mehravikas wrote:@maihuna - you mean OA is B?
Yeah OA is B
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:40 pm
Hi Nagendra...

That was very nice to c OA !!

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:26 am
gmatmachoman wrote:Hi Nagendra...

That was very nice to c OA !!
You're too funny Gov ;)
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Thanked: 4 times

by jainrahul1985 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:33 am
can someone please explain what's wrong with option C . I understand the problem is not with the plans but the problem caused by planes .

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Oct 2010
Location: Mexico
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:760

by hcueva » Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:43 am
jainrahul1985 wrote:can someone please explain what's wrong with option C . I understand the problem is not with the plans but the problem caused by planes .
I think the problem with C) is that the manufacturer didn't EXPLICITELY dismissed the evidence as irrelevant; he may have just missed it.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: 21 May 2012
Thanked: 1 times

by vinodsundaram » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:01 am
C,D,E can be eliminated. Out of Scope

A&B are close
A talks about the objective evaluation of facts. No fact is mentioned by regulator. Just that hazardous conditions in the vicinity.

By POE, B