Critical Reasoning

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 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.

I would go for A.

Will go with B.

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...

I would go for - D

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.

@maihuna - you mean OA is B?

mehravikas wrote:@maihuna - you mean OA is B?

Yeah OA is B

Hi Nagendra...

That was very nice to c OA !!

gmatmachoman wrote:Hi Nagendra...

That was very nice to c OA !!

You're too funny Gov

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 .

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.

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