BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

X-387

Expert replies
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 :)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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.
Join the discussion

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

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

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...
Join the discussion

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

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 :)
Join the discussion

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

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 :)
Join the discussion

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

That was very nice to c OA !!
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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 .
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion