energetic disassembly

My pick is B, since it suggest that the phrase "energetic disassembly" will not elicit as much interest as the term "explosion", which is actually the only problem the author has with the whole replacing thing.

I think it will be A.

DanaJ wrote:My pick is B, since it suggest that the phrase "energetic disassembly" will not elicit as much interest as the term "explosion", which is actually the only problem the author has with the whole replacing thing.

DanaJ,
I think B can not be an assumption for the argument. The argument persuade one not to use "energetic disassembly" and instead use "explosion". So whether the term "energetic disassembly" has been previously used it doesn't affect the argument.

Instead since the whole issue is about alertness related with a given preference, there is not much benifits if its negative outweight the corresponding positive, so that can be a valid assumption

You're right. The reason I chose this option was because the phrase "whereas the substitute phrase does not" did not stick to my head. For me, the best "correct" option for this question would have been "Energetic dissasembly" does not elicit the same amount of interest as "explosion" and I suppose B was the better rephrasing. After reading the argument again, I realized I totally forgot about that phrase.

It shuld be C

Any one for C???

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word "explosion" and use the phrase "energetic disassembly" instead. In fact, the word "explosion" elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, "explosion" is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term "explosion" outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
(B) The phrase "energetic disassembly" has not so far been used as a substitute for the word "explosion" in the kind of discussion at issue.
(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
(D) The only reason that people would have for using "energetic disassembly" in place of "explosion" is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
(E) The phrase "energetic disassembly" is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.



the answer of above question in my opinion should be A

BECAUSE OTHER OPTIONS DO NOT FILL THE GAP B/W CONC. AND EVIDENCE.

THE CONCLUSION is clearly supported by A, as it states that ALTERNATE DOES NOT EXIST.

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word "explosion" and use the phrase "energetic disassembly" instead. In fact, the word "explosion" elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, "explosion" is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort

i feel it is C

the OA for this question is A.

if we negate option A
The advantages of desirable reactions to the term 'explosion' do not necessarily outweigh the drawbacks , if any, arising from non desirable reactions to the term. i.e. advantages are few or fewer than the drawbacks so author's point is weakened.