explosion or Energetic

what's wrong with D?

I agree that , the reasoning for A supports the claim.

But it holds good for D too. Is it the reason that since it has "only" in it , it can't be true.

"only" could be a flag , not a spoiler.

will someone please state a scenario in which "D" couldn't be an assumption?

regards,

Ansuman

The existence of other reasons for advocating the use of 'energetic disassembly' would not invalidate the argument: somebody could insist on using this term to sound educated or because it is easier to pronounce or to draw a distinction between two similar phenomena

kevin,

thanks for the reply.

Please confirm me one thing. I though that is where I went wrong in my analysis.

the logical negation of option "D" would be: "one of the reasons 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. "

and not "only reason that people would have for using "energetic disassembly" in place of "explosion" is not to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions. "

looking forward to your response.

regards,

Ansumania

ansumania wrote:kevin,

thanks for the reply.

Please confirm me one thing. I though that is where I went wrong in my analysis.

the logical negation of option "D" would be: "one of the reasons 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. "

and not "only reason that people would have for using "energetic disassembly" in place of "explosion" is not to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions. "

looking forward to your response.

regards,

Ansumania

I prefer the former: one of the reasons...